The Refugee Racket

Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, October 25, 2013

Another sorry tale of betrayal.

“Refugee Racket,” The Social Contract, Summer 2013, free of charge on Internet, hard copies can be ordered here.

There are many ways for a foreigner to get into the United States, and one of the most corrupt ways of doing it legally is to be admitted as a “refugee.” Since 1975, more than 3 million refugees have been resettled in the United States, and one of the best introductions to how they got here is in the latest issue of The Social Contract, a quarterly magazine published in Petoskey, Michigan. This issue, titled “The Refugee Racket,” is a 60-page compilation of articles that expose a little-known web of scams.

America first started admitting displaced persons in 1948 after the Second World War. Some of them actually met the State Department’s definition of a refugee: a person who is “in imminent danger of loss of life and for whom there appears to be no alternative to resettlement in the United States.” Virtually all refugees were Europeans, and once they were here they had to make it on their own. If there was a sponsoring agency it paid for the costs of resettlement.

America continued to accept refugees during the Cold War, but after the Vietnam War the system changed completely. The Refugee Act, passed in 1980, did two important things: It redefined a refuge as “a person who is unwilling or unable to return to his country . . . because of persecution or a well founded fear of persecution . . . ,” and made tax money available for resettlement.

Anyone who has left his own country and doesn’t want to go home is therefore a potential refugee. Until the 1990s, the United States decided whom we should let in, but now a UN agency called the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) chooses about 95 percent of our refugees. The President and Congress still decide how many will come—usually 60,000 to 80,000 a year—but we have farmed out the selection process to people who are not even Americans.

We are very cozy with UNHCR, giving the agency $700 million a year—far more than they get from any other country—and we take about 75 percent of everyone they resettle. In fact, the United States accepts far more refugees than every other country combined, and accepts more on a per capita basis than all but two countries: Australia and Canada. Needless to say, the top ten most generous receiving countries are all white, at least for the time being.


Most Americans would be surprised to learn who UNHCR sends us. As the table shows, the top two sources of refugees in fiscal 2012 were Bhutan and Burma (which now calls itself Myanmar). Bhutan? These people were actually ethnic Nepalese who had moved, uninvited, into Bhutan, which kicked them out. They were living in refugee camps in what is actually their own country—Nepal—but the Nepalese didn’t want them either, so UNHCR decided we needed them. As one of the authors in “Refugee Racket” notes:

The United States has become the dumping ground for people inconveniently located in places where majority populations don’t want them, such as Nepalis in Bhutan, Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and Somalis in Kenya.

The “Somalis,” whom this author mentions, are not really Somali. They are the “Somali Bantu,” who got a certain amount of incredulous press when UNHCR started sending them to us in 2003. They were originally from what is now Tanzania and Mozambique, but were captured in the 19th century by slave traders who sold them to Somalis. They are now nominally free, but Somalis still consider them subhuman. They were moldering in Kenyan refugee camps when UN bureaucrats decided they would make good Americans.

Many had never seen an electric switch or indoor plumbing, so they had a bit of adjusting to do. Most were illiterate in their own language, spoke no English, and had no profession, so their career prospects were dim. We now have 13,000 of them, and since they like to have babies, we can look forward to many more.

The other big change that came with the 1980 law was an instant refugee resettlement industry; groups materialized in order to take the government money that was suddenly available. Known as “volunteer agencies” or Volags, most are church related, and have names such as Church World Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. They get $1,875 in government money per head of refugee they manage to put somewhere in the country. They spend $1,100 on the refugee and keep $750 for themselves, so Volags like a high-volume business. All told, they get about $40 million a year of your and my money, some of which they use to lobby Congress to keep the flow going. The largest Volags have essentially no other source of income.

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) was set up to get Russian Jews out of the Soviet Union back when there was no public money in it. All the Jews who want to leave have left, so the HIAS shifted into a new specialty of bringing Sudanese, Kenyans, and Ugandans to America. Volags pick up their clients from UNHCR, so the entire merry-go-round is paid for by tax money.

UNHCR is supposed to choose only the worthiest sufferers for resettlement in America, but it is hardly immune to bribery. Also, most of its charges come from countries in which there is no such thing as a background check, and UNHCR may not even know their real names. That means there is no way to weed out jihadis, criminals, and psychopaths. UNHCR no longer even pretends to test for AIDS or tuberculosis, so we are guaranteed a colorful crew.

Compared to other immigrants, refugees go first class. As soon as they touch down, they are eligible for every handout available to US citizens. The Volag that collared them finds them a place to stay and shows them how to get welfare, but after a couple of months its responsibility is over, and it heads back to UNHCR for another batch it can resettle at $1,875 each. The local community—which may never have been consulted before Bhutanese or Bantu jackpot-winners were landed on them—must feed, clothe, house, and try to educate these Americans-to-be.

In 2009, a survey of refugees by the federal government found that 70 percent were on food stamps, 58 percent on Medicaid (only 9 percent had medical insurance through an employer), 38 percent were getting cash assistance, and 32 percent were in public housing. No doubt, some were getting all these things. Dependency rates continue to rise.

Most Volags claim that 65 percent or more of their charges are “self sufficient” after four months, but this is a joke. For Volags, “self sufficient” includes everything refugees can get their hands on, and they are “self sufficient” if they can live on the welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc. they are getting. They are not considered “self sufficient” only if they still need money after their handouts (and earnings, if they actually have a job). The official annual outlay on resettlement is said to be about $1 billion, but that is just the direct costs. If you include public assistance, it comes to over $10 billion.

Needless to say, a whole sub industry of “service providers” has grown up around clumps of refugees. As one author in “The Refugee Racket” notes:

These “service providers” as well as many of the contractor affiliates are now run by former refugees themselves. In fact these second- and third-tier service providers are more accurately described as exclusive ethnic clubs with close ties to their former country.

Naturally, they help make sure that more people like themselves keep coming.

Refugees have another advantage over other legal immigrants. For their first two years in the US, they can bring in family members, who do not even count against the annual refugee quota. Refugees have big families, sometimes suspiciously so. DNA tests showed that up to 95 percent of the kinfolk Somalis were bringing in were not related to them at all.

A few smaller American communities refuse to be dumping grounds. They got wind that a band of illiterates was headed their way and made such a stink that the State Department told the Volag to peddle their product somewhere else. Most of the time, Volags target larger cities that cannot claim they can’t take in a few more waifs, but even easy touches can be pushed too far. Volags have therefore scattered largess in every state (except, oddly, Wyoming), and Arizona gets the most refugees per capita.

Minneapolis has been very long-suffering. By the end of 2010, it had 40 percent of the 84,000 Somalis that have been resettled in America. However, they became the nucleus of a population estimated at 125,000 if all legals and illegals are included. Somalis specialize in credit card fraud, cell phone robbery, gun-store burglaries, and prostitution of young girls. In May 2013, young Somalis started attacking people on a Minneapolis jogging trail. They didn’t even take anything; the point was to humiliate whites.

The Somali clan system thwarts American justice. If a Somali of one clan kills someone in another clan they work out a blood-money payment–often to the mother clan back in Somalia. American prosecutors can find no one to testify and known killers walk free.

More than 20 Minnesota Somalis have gone home to fight in al-Shabab terror squads, and at least one “American” has blown himself up in a suicide attack. Not even the grimmest liberals can claim Somalis have been a blessing to Minneapolis. The local blacks hate them.

The other well-known concentration of Somalis is in Maine. Enterprising Somalis went scouting for the most generous benefits, and found them in the unsuspecting town of Lewiston. The travails of this decaying, once-industrial city of 35,000 have been well reported.

Other notable refugees are the Tsarnaev family, which came in 2002 from Dagestan. They went back for a visit just a few years later, which shows how persecuted they were. The Russians told us Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a Muslim madman, but we paid no attention. Tamerlan and his brother Dzhokar went on to blow people up during the 2013 Boston Marathon.


Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev


There is a separate category of near-refugees called “asylum seekers.” They first come to the United States and then make a claim of a “well founded fear of persecution.”  Once they are on American soil, “persecution” is often the first word out of their mouths. That means they cannot be shoved back across the border.

There is no annual limit on the number of asylum seekers, and no limit to their creativity. Lately, the push has been to define entire classes of people as subject to persecution, so as to make them eligible for asylum whether they themselves ever suffered anything. For example, there are African countries in which homosexuality is a crime, so the plan is to make every homosexual in those places automatically eligible. A Congolese illegal immigrant who makes a pass at a customs agent would be on his way to a green card.

Many African countries also mutilate women’s genitals, so any woman from such a country could be a candidate. Some people claim that anyone trying to escape China’s one-child policy has a “well founded fear of persecution” and should therefore get the red carpet. Illegal immigrants have actually tried all these tricks at the border, and been released into the United States while an immigration judge wrestles with the issue.

In the summer of 2013, a group of young Mexican illegals who had been deported to Mexico walked back into the country claiming they had a “well founded fear of persecution” back in Mexico because they had lived in the United States. The “DREAM 9” as this group of activists called themselves , persuaded a judge to mull this over, and were loosed back into the US. The latest trick is for Mexicans to show up claiming that drug cartels—which certainly do barbaric things—are reason enough to claim asylum.

One famous asylum-seeker is Nafissatou Diallo, the Guinean women who accused former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn of raping her at a Manhattan hotel. Her case fell apart when prosecutors discovered what an experienced liar she is. She lied all over her asylum application too, but she is still in the US, having pocketed close to a million dollars after her lawyers took their cut from a settlement she got this year from Mr. Strauss-Kahn in a civil suit.

Sometimes people get to stay in America because nature persecuted them. They get something called Temporary Protected Status, which means their country is such a mess it would be cruel to send them home. In this case, the word “temporary” appears to have no meaning. For example, Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras in 1998 and killed an estimated 15,000 people. We decided Hondurans, no matter how illegal, could not be sent back to a wrecked country, so they got to stay. Fifteen years later, they still enjoy “temporary” protected status.

El Salvador had a nasty earthquake in 2001. As a result, one million Salvadorans—20 percent of the country’s population—are “temporarily” taking shelter in America. The El Salvador government does not want those people back. Every year, they send home $4 billion, or about 18 percent of the country’s GDP.

The 2010 earthquake in Haiti was a stroke of good luck for all Haitians here illegally. Sixty thousand are now “temporarily” sheltering in our bosom.

Not even accounting for acts of nature, Wayne Lutton, editor of The Social Contract, points out that depending on how you define persecution, about 4 billion people could be eligible for asylum. Freedom House says 34 percent of the population of the world is “not free,” and another 23 percent are only “partially free.”

Americans would be furious if they knew how the refugee and asylum systems worked. The Social Contract has done a great service by shining light into the dark corners of a rotten system that should be abolished.

Topics: , , , , , , , , ,

Share This

Thomas Jackson
Thomas Jackson lives in Virginia and has been writing for American Renaissance for more than 20 years.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • David Ashton

    The Titanic had an insufficient number of lifeboats. Imagine a lifeboat the size of Titanic. Imagine an endless number of such lifeboats. Is it necessary to complete the parable?

    • Spartacus

      Does DiCaprio die in your parable?

      • David Ashton

        No, everyone does.

      • Alfred the Great

        Yes, I heard that DiKraprio does die in the parable.

        • stewball

          What parable?

      • stewball

        That was the worst film ever.

        • Katherine McChesney

          Whiny soap opera garbage. That song ‘My heart will go on’, is pure drivel.

          • stewball

            I was in Prague when I saw it. My feet were frozen so I stayed in, ordered room service and that idiotic film. What a waste of money and time.

      • stewball

        That was the worst film ever.

  • No asylum or refugee status for German home school families, or South African whites.

    The Tsarnaev brothers: They were linked in to the elite of Chechnyan society; they were hardly persecuted. And, as someone who is watching the World Series, like probably 99% of St. Louisans, if I have to hear that stupid phrase “Boston Strong” and see the #BostonStrong hashtag all over Twitter any more, I think I’m going to heave. Yeah, Boston Strong. You’d think all those strong Bostonians would get a hint and put up someone in their first major election after the Boston Massacre that wanted real immigration restriction. No, their “choice” was between probably the most liberal Democrat in the House, open borders all the way, and a Colombian anchor baby ex-Navy SEAL, also open borders all the way.

    • Jerrybear

      Boston and Massachusetts whites are pampered and live in a bubble. There will be white flight just like every other major city that has been destroyed by diversity.

    • PouponMarks

      And don’t forget the Zimbabwe White farmers who illegally get slaughtered and displaced, after being promised to be able to keep their farms at independence.

      All of these people would be productive additions to the economy, society, and the gene pool. Instead, we take in losers who have little earning potential, ghettoize themselves in their loser cultures-and of course, vote Democratic.

    • Paleoconn

      QD, you nailed it, a usual. Those narcissistic opportunists trotting out victims of Sandy Hook and the Marathon bombing make me sick. Nobody markets tragedy like American libs and neocons. Gimmicks. I call it tragedy porn.

      That Hebrew outfit, can we pay them double what they get now to relocate to Israel and settle refugees there? How about 10x the money? I didn’t think so. Let’s just shut them down.

      But since we’re getting these refugees, how about we send them all to Vermont and Maine. Give them White socialist Obama voters some vibrancy. Arizona is punished for its conservatism, and SB 1070 which sticks in the feds’ craw.

      That bit about Somali blood-money and killers walking the streets? If they’re killing each other, no sweat, pass the popcorn.

  • Spartacus

    “The United States has become the dumping ground for people
    inconveniently located in places where majority populations don’t want
    them, such as Nepalis in Bhutan, Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, and
    Somalis in Kenya.”


    Whites are the majority in the US, and I’m reasonably certain most of them don’t want groids. How about deporting all of them ? I suggest Israel .

    • Jack Burton

      Whites are the majority, yeah right. According to the US government Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev are considered White, along with North Africans, West Asians and mixed-race Latin Americans.

      • Jerrybear

        ‘Non-Hispanic whites’ (I find that term offensive) are 63% of the population. I know some Arabs and Chechnyans are grouped in the category but they are around 1-2%. So at the moment we are still the majority. That won’t be very long with the refugee racket and the illegal/legal alien invasion we currently enjoy.

        • Jack Burton

          It’s a very inaccurate system, Whites are overstated. Look at the recent police report for the teenage psychopathic mulatto Chism, they report him as White.

        • Andy

          Why does that term offend you?

          • Jerrybear

            We now refer to whites with the negative adjective ‘non-hispanic’. What happened to just ‘white, Caucasian, or European’?

          • stewball

            I would imagine because he can’t be white Latino. He’s either one or the other.

        • kjh64

          These percentages count all people living in the USA, citizens or not, legally or not. The percentage of “non-Hispanic” Whites, claimed to be 66 percent of the populace by the census would go up considerably if we had the guts to get rid of the millions of illegal (35-50 million est) alone. If you got rid of millions of legal resident freeloaders, the percentage of Whites would go even higher.

    • stewball

      You’ve suggested that one before. Is that all you have in your repertoire? Sing another tune sparky.

  • JohnEngelman

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    – Emma Lazarus, from “The New Colossus”

    This concept has only worked for Europeans and Orientals. The essence of race realism is to recognize that the races are not equal. Some are intrinsically superior to others. Some are inherently dangerous and criminal.

    • shmo123

      Spare us the sentimentality. What country needs or wants “poor, tired, huddled masses”?

      • JohnEngelman

        Many of them did well in this country. Many of their descendants did too.

        • shmo123

          Ok, I’ll give you that some have or will succeed–the odds favor it. However for every success, I am certain there are far more failures–particularly when you are talking third world peasants who can’t speak the language, have no marketable skills or any cultural or historical ties to this country whatsoever. I think of Somalis in Maine or the Hmong in Minnesota–as incongruous as Eskimos in Florida. If some virtuous band of charitable types want to see how well subsistence farmers do in a post-industrial high-tech economy, let them do it on their own dime, and in another place. No one is going to stop them from scouring the world for the poor and dispossessed to relocate.

          The American people are among the most generous in the world when it comes to charitable giving. But charity begins at home and no one is coerced into giving anything. Why then should we be forced into paying for the world’s poor, who are unlimited in number? Why should any group be given the power and means to drag people over here who cannot support themselves and will invariably end up living off the American taxpayer? Why should we be forced pay for it without our consent?

          • JohnEngelman

            I am not sure you understood my previous comment. I said that Europeans (especially Jews), and Orientals have generally done well in this country. I see no reason to admit Muslims and/or blacks, and little reason to admit Hispanics.

          • shmo123

            No, I didn’t, and I agree with you on that. You should have specified that in your comment.

          • Anna Tree

            Misunderstanding Shmo123, JohnEngelman did: “This concept has only worked for Europeans and Orientals.”

            But I agree with you about Emma Lazarus’s tirade, yes, (European) people with disadvantages or disabilities should be helped by society, but not to the detriment of the larger population that is ultimately going to be the ones who are going to provide for them.

          • stewball

            Again with the Jews and Asians John?

          • M&S

            The key is to understand the reality of -why- these people do it: profit motive. And it is the very selfishness of that profit motive and the use of projectionism as cover (ignore my greed, you racist!) that makes their solutions so viciously un-altruistic.
            As another poster stated with his ‘lifeboat’ analogy (pure Camp of the Saints brilliance there), we cannot absorb the world’s poor. Nor should we have to because it is _the absence of huge populations_ such as every other racial nation state from Mexico to India to China have burdened themselves with which has left America open enough to be vital and rich in it’s growable social values.
            If you want to solve world poverty, you have to export the TOOLS to do so. And that means first and foremost robotics to build infrastructure without corruption or stupidity interfering.
            To save the Africas from their own priapism which will see a land 50% desert and 30% arid Savannah populated with 4.3 billion screaming mouths to feed by 2100, we must begin by killing off the huge game herds and sterilizing the waterways so as to destroy the interconnecting vectors for the diseases which now render the entire continental interior a high lethality zone.
            We must then begin building roads to bring massive pipelines of desalinized saltwater inland so that drought and famine do not go hand in hand. And we must plant millions of acres of disease proof grain on which to graze billion animal herds of beef cattle which are sufficiently protected against disease to be -safe- to eat.
            Anything less than this MULTI TRILLION DOLLAR project will begin to see Malthusian outcomes as 4.3 billion Africans breed like the 70 IQ locusts they are, past carrying capacity and into die offs which will flatly _dwarf_ every war in history (half a billion or more, at a time).
            But in a continent whose population is barely ten points from being statistically mentally retarded (and remember the average means that 40% or more -are- retarded), we cannot teach anything nor expect a livable work ethic to result from our doing so.
            So we need robotics to achieve what humans will not do: which is help the decrepit and unpleasant where they live. Without expectations of massive remuneration for their ‘kindness’.
            Do you want to know why it will never happen?
            1. Such an effort to export goodness rather than import evil would be something that these right brained ‘artist/empath’ morons are not mentally equipped to undertake. They are frustrated politicians as control freaks, not would-be engineers as problem solvers. And so they don’t see bigger pictures.
            2. If you end world poverty, the control freak ‘healers and helpers’ would have no one else, less than themselves, to ‘save’ by bossing around. And with no freebie population of pathetics, they cannot inflict the doers and achievers with a guilt-tax that ‘oh by the way’ keeps them in business too.
            In this there is a secrete psychopathology at work: the charitable multicultists feel affinity with the unwashed masses because they are like unto like. Both lost in a world where they lack the technical skills to be a success, both playing the ultimate con game to retain their social position by taking from the does-something-usefuls to redistribute among the genetically impoverished.
            _Just_. _Like_. _Themselves_.
            It is beyond criminal and towards comical that whites will choose blacks over fellow whites because they don’t want to be the last empaths in a world full of autonomous beings.

        • Brian

          Can we get Bush to retrieve his ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner? The Bible says ‘be fruitful and multiply’, and now we have 7 billion on earth, so mission accomplished– Africans should use condoms now. We’ve done our bit for the poor, tired, huddled masses and wretched refuse– mission accomplished. Put Lazarus’ plaque in a museum.

          • stewball

            That was in the Old Testament so meant for the Israelites.

    • stewball

      It certainly didn’t apply during the time of the holocaust!

      • JohnEngelman

        Yes, unfortunately. 🙁

        • stewball

          That shouldbe done saway with. It’s obviously not true. At the real time of need it was worthless.

    • LolKatzen

      That was also written in the days before welfare became so standard.

    • DaveMed

      Precisely. Our systems were constructed with certain assumptions in place. Various confounders have spoiled the soup.

  • captainc

    why don’t real americans do something about it? why do I smell defeatism everywhere?

  • John Engelman, perhaps by fault of nature, brings up The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus.

    The history of Emma Lazarus and the motives for her subversive high-jacking of the Statue of Liberty (to give it this new wider meaning as a beacon of immigration and asylum) is an interesting one, and one which I hope all Americans here will already know about.

    I probably cannot discus on Amren what this is though, well, not without getting my comment deleted.That in itself is a bit of a clue for those who have not read up on who she was and what her goals/motives were.

    When it comes to the main article, in recent years – after long being quite blind to it – I have increasingly come to the opinion that much of what is going on is often all about money.

    There are malicious scum bags who are hell bent on destroying our nations and our peoples, but a lot of the actual mechanics of how they are doing it seems to centre upon greed and feeding a system.

    The case presented for the United States is in my view mirrored in Europe (the UN agency telling us what to accept, the funds and grants and charities and “industry” that surrounds asylum, immigration and race-relations etc).

    Even for a small example, take the Gurkha’s that Joanna Lumley stupidly championed to come to Britain in 2009/2010.

    These people are no doubt still arriving penniless, clutching their suitcases and sat crying on the pavements of England because they do not know what to do. They are already found living in poxy and mouldy bedsits which even the Romanians and various other chancers are too scared to live in.

    They arrive, without being able to speak or write English. Most cannot even read and write their native Nepalese. They have nil chance of a job because of these factors and
    because of the massive job losses in the recession – not to mention the other 4 to 5 Million immigrants (and unaccounted for illegals) which have entered this country in the last decade.

    Many have sold their farms, their fields, their livelyhoods to take a chance here. Many have put themselves into dangerous loans and debts with unscrupulous lenders.

    They are now trapped, and many have nothing to go back to, not that they could afford to buy a plane ticket home anyway.

    The family back home now have no livelihood, they are expecting the newly arrived immigrant to Britain to work the system and send money home so they can afford the flights and the visas too.

    They are thus subjected to more poverty at home because they have lost the main workers and their means of a living. Loan sharks are awaiting some recompense from some of these families in the meantime.

    Charity groups here are begging desperately for help from the government for funds, whilst the usual corruption ensues over in Nepal and in the UK, where the immigration “industry” puts its fangs into the situation.

    They shaft immigrants for profit (and keeping their own jobs) and then go on to have the nerve to “feel good” about their settlement here and lecture us as to how nasty we are for not wanting this situation to develop here!

    The Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen’s Organisation (GAESO) in Nepal was reported as charging each veteran £500 in cash for UK visa advice whilst weaving rosy tales about life here.

    The numbers of people wishing to come as a result of this “Union” organisation jumped significantly. At £500 per case, I am sure it is a nice little earner for somebody!.

    Solicitors from Howe & Co, a top firm of London human rights lawyers linked to GAESO were reported as receiving a legal aid fee of up to £500 from the British Government
    (ie, us) for each old soldier and each family member they help fill in a UK visa application.

    This single issue is proving a gold mine for all concerned – apart from the Gurkhas themselves and the wider British people who will have to suffer the ultimate fall out.

    Rushmoor Council in Hampshire had already admitted in 2010 that ‘several thousand’ may be in the area in the first few months of the doors being opened, all still awaiting state support.

    It is total lunacy. But that is what the mechanism is. Lots of people are getting rich on promoting lunacy and chaos. The more horrible and chaotic things become, the more they look likely to make.

    A whole swathe of companies and organisations and charities depend on the perpetuation of what will amount to white genocide. Many of the “useful idiots” think they are morally superior to those of us who take a different view to theirs – but they are not, they are far from it.

    • And of course what is left out of the liberal equation, is that Nepal itself loses out in so many ways that could help in its development, at the very least at a local village level, the loss of a steady military pension which was guaranteed each month, the loss of men who had learn and mastered new skills that only a modern military force can give them, leadership, motivation, discipline and whatever they specialised in, medical, engineering, logistics, etc. On top of that they had signed a contract that explicitly stated all their duties and entitlements.

    • kjh64

      As has been said, no nation can’t base immigration policy on a sappy poem.

  • LolKatzen

    He’s white, but he’s Muslim. You don’t have as many Muslims as other Anglo countries such as Canada. Tip: you don’t want Muslims, whether they’re white or not. They are a huge aggrevation.

  • NoMosqueHere

    All immigration from third world countries must end, and white immigration must increase. The policy changed to favor third worlders; so it can and must change again to favor whites. All policies are subject to change; so why not this one? All that’s lacking is whitey’s support — he should get off his butt, stop watching spectator sports, and get political.

    • DaveMed

      Naturally, immigration from the third world must cease.

      But I’d hesitate to increase white immigration. More whites coming here means fewer whites in Europe, so the tradeoff is bittersweet.

      I think that America, due to its Constitution (which was meant for a white nation), is a hopeless case.

      • Brian

        We should at least take the South African whites who want to come.

    • IstvanIN

      We should have an open door policy for all whites left in Africa.

  • DaveMed

    The eyebrows, eyes, and hair would make me think twice.

    • WASP


  • stewball

    No. I meant the Armenias by the Turks.

  • Kenelm Digby

    “Racket” is exactly the right word for it. It’s a big business. Some very fat personal salaries are dependent on shipping over as many darkies as possible, so therefore the endless back tide keeps flowing.

  • Erasmus

    And does anyone still wonder why the country is going broke?

  • Married white women rarely vote differently from their husbands.

    With a catch.

    If a married white woman votes Republican, it’s because her husband does. If a married white man votes Democrat, it’s because his wife does.

  • watling

    Why are African refugees not rehomed in other African countries? Is it because no African country wants them? If so, why is it that African countries can refuse them but Western countries cannot?

    Or is it the case that the species Bleedingus Heartus Libtardus is only found in Western countries?

    • Terra Magnum Imperium

      More like Bloodsuckingustodeath Heartless Libertardus.

    • Anna Tree

      Yes they are only found in white countries. There is a great amren article about pathological altruism. Here is a summary of it I post where I can:

      From Pathological Altruism, by Barbara Oakley et al.:
      “PA is generally defined as a sincere attempt to help others that instead harms others or oneself, and is “an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one’s own needs.”
      “PA is likely when people “falsely believe that they caused the other’s problems, or falsely believe that they have the means to relieve the person of suffering.”
      “the false belief that one’s own success, happiness, or well-being is a source of unhappiness for others.” PA “often involves self-righteousness,” and can result in
      “impulsive and ineffective efforts to equalize or level the playing field.”

      I think all this sounds a perfect description the white liberalist attitude towards non-whites but nobody said this in the book: they may even not be aware of the
      elephant in the room!

      Again from that book: “glorifying altruism is both recent and Western.” “a society must have a certain level of material wealth before it can value certain kinds of altruism.” “only whites have decided “to elevate altruism above other culturally
      promoted ideals, such as tribal patriotism and glory-at-arms, which our ancestors considered paramount.” They have gone even further, extending tribal altruism to the entire world, though “some other cultures consider this Western quality to border on madness.” It is madness, but the whites who say it is madness are accused of racism.

      I think we are brainwashed, starting in the schools, that our “Humanity as a whole might benefit the most if individuals made no sacrifices for their local group.” (this IS a real quote in the book!!!)

      Seems the whites are the only race who don’t know about the prisoner’s dilemma! We cooperate! But all the other groups don’t. Check that game theory: we will always loose, they will always win (well that until the Chinese take our place, then a lot will change I think).

      At least one of the contributor of the book warns: “if groups want to act altruistically towards other groups they should at least look for groups that follow the same rules.”

  • Spartacus

    Maybe she meant this one :

    • stewball

      Hey sparky. When was that written? How many centuries ago? At least put something relevant to our times.
      And did the great and powerful America let them in?

  • stewball

    Well they are and Uganda wouldn’t take them.

  • stewball

    This is what happens when you re-elect a fool

  • stewball

    Are you a woman?

  • stewball

    Grow up.

  • stewball

    I’m sorry. I very much liked Love Actually. Light and amusing. No violence. No bad language. What’s not to like?

  • China_Rising

    The ‘refugees’ look very happy.

  • JohnEngelman

    Most Orientals behave and perform better than most white Gentiles.

    Orientals earn their description as “the model minority.”

    • John

      Spoken truly, however, you weaseled out of specifically answering his question or responding to his statement, didn’t you? Why is that? Obviously “bebe” knows exactly what Lazarus was talking about, I know as well. Apparently you do as well which is precisely why you avoided answering him to begin with. Don’t want to out yourself, do you?

  • kjh64

    Very well said Tucker. I’ve noticed that a lot, not all, but a lot of minorities do really think this way. They really see White America as having this unlimited supply of money that they are entitled to. They do not seem to have any concept of finance and overspending.

  • kjh64

    If men were the ones who got pregnant, it would have been legal and a constitutional right since 1776 and the rate would have been and would be much, much higher and every male would support it as his constitutional right. Women can have careers and kids and they can always give a baby up if they don’t want to be a parent yet. This is a deeply personal medical issue, not one of “inconvenience”. Most babies aren’t born because of birth control, such as the pill or depo shots etc.

    A lot of men go out and say boys will be boys and sleep around and if they get a woman pregnant, demand she not have it and if she does. leave. Men should stop getting all these women pregnant and be willing to raise the kid to adulthood if they do but is that happening, NO.

    • WASP

      Agreed. I’m a woman. For the great majority of women, abortion is not about “inconvenience”; it is deeply personal for all the reasons you stated and more.

  • Brian

    The Legend of Bagger Vance gives it a run for its money. Was shown that pile of excrement on an airplane and wanted to jump out the plane to escape. The Magic Negro element is comically absurd in that ‘film’.

  • Seek

    I’ll take “Fight Club” as the best ever. Or failing that, “A History of Violence.”

  • WASP

    I would call him one who passes as “White” or who is accepted as White, but he is not totally White (European). There are a lot of people like him. “White” — for many people — is a broad and general term.

  • Tuireann21

    A Russian would call him a churka.

  • Ed

    Thank you. I blame the media for this erroneous myth being adopted by the masses. The gender gap is in reality a race gap. Black women vote 99-1 for Democrats so they skew the female vote heavily. Hispanics also vote heavily for Dems.

    Also the youth gap is flimsy too since Romney won the majority of White voters under 30. This country revolves around a racial axis, period.

  • shmo123

    Not all did arrive with marketable skills, and as a result, either through their own personal failure, illness, or being denied admission for whatever reason at one of the entry points, almost a third ended up back in Europe. There were no “safety nets” or government hand outs, so it was pretty much a clear case of sink or swim. It took guts and courage to come here, and I’m still grateful that my ancestors took that risk 145 years ago.

  • shmo123

    I may be wrong, but I believe Lazarus wrote that poem regarding Czarist pogroms against Jews in the 19th century. Somehow it ended up at the base of the statue, but not because it was written specifically to bolster immigration or get squishy about “wretched refuse” or “tempest tost” homeless immigrants.

  • Katherine McChesney

    It isn’t a perfect movie but it doesn’t pretend to be reality like that garbage James Cameron produced.

    • stewball

      Why did it get so many Oscars?

  • Katherine McChesney

    The announcer of this video is pro-black. Blacks would destroy Israel and the Israelites know it.

  • M&S

    ANd you claim to be against ‘multism’???
    Let’s NOT ‘widen the group’ to the point that we ignore the percentages of groups which have ‘elite leftists’ of that particular Tribe who directly or through backdoor suitcase money sponsor our more liberal idiots into office on the _publically stated_ (Jewish paranoia is funny that way) agenda of non-white majority nations being safer for Jews.
    Get a clue, buy a vowel: You are not women, you don’t have a right to impose your view on the ‘making the world safer’ _for you_ when the world is bigger than the 3% ethnic composition you contribute to.
    Israel has a Jews Only policy. Israel has 300 nukes which no nation on the planet is mandating be removed from their ownership or ‘We start bombing!’.
    You have no right to come into white nations and demand more.
    If we did what Hitler did and refused Jews scholarships or government representation in our society at more than their ethnic percentile presence (quotaism, learn to like it) we would quickly see the end of ‘destroy whites to make the world safer for Jews’ policy agendas.
    Because it’s not really about Jewish Paranoia. It’s about Jewish megalomania. As a desire to rule the planet without us in their way.
    Multism and anti-racism is the projected guilt of one ultra-racist ethnogroup trying to con the planet into believing that ‘if no one group has power, the Jews won’t own everything’.
    They have taken Divide et Empera to species slaughtering extremes.
    Only truly large, ethnically homogenous, nations like China now stand a chance of returning the favor and by then it may be too late.

  • stewball

    I sometimes need something light to take problems off my mind and that worked perfectly.

  • stewball

    Peacenik. That’s not an English made up word. Kibbutznik came before.