Leaders of Anti-Immigration Groups Aren’t Exactly Conservative

Soren Dayton, Daily Caller, April 18, 2013

In 2007, I met a field organizer who had worked against immigration reform. He was not who you might imagine. His background was in the labor and environmental movements that so many conservatives deplore.

He wanted to stop immigration reform because he believed that human beings were destroying the planet and that an increase in the U.S. population would exacerbate the environmental injustices he perceived to be occurring already.

That was my first experience with the anti-immigration reform movement’s real radicalism, but it has hardly been the last. {snip}

The reality is, their problem with immigration has nothing to do with border security or the fear that immigrants will become public charges — both concerns that are dealt with robustly and effectively by the Gang of Eight’s legislation, which is vastly more conservative than the immigration reform proposed in 2006 and 2007. Their concern is with “saving the planet” from the supposed grave menace of human beings, with many prominent figures associated with anti-immigration causes and organizations having advocated for population control, abortion and sterilization.


As the evangelical publication World Magazine noted recently, Dr. John Tanton, an environmentalist who served as national president of Zero Population Growth, helped “found FAIR (1979), CIS (1985) and NumbersUSA (1997), groups that separately engage the public, produce research and lobby Congress for the same thing: lower immigration.”

The Wall Street Journal reported a few years back that “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, Project-USA — and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfy with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton, a retired doctor in Michigan. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population-control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women and wider use of RU-486.”

As the New York Times reported, Tanton also founded Planned Parenthood and Sierra Club chapters. {snip}


Roy Beck, the former editor of Dr. Tanton’s journal, founded NumbersUSA, reportedly with fundraising assistance from Tanton. Today Beck heads NumbersUSA, which can also be expected to criticize the bill. NumbersUSA’s YouTube page features a video of the founder of Earth Day touting Beck’s work on population matters, and this video linking environmental concerns to population and immigration restrictionism.


Yet, in the coming days we can expect to hear FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA criticize the immigration reform bill on conservative grounds. Christian conservatives and pro-life leaders in elected office should beware. When we listen to these organizations, we should ask ourselves what value they actually place on human life and human dignity.

It is worth noting in this context that countless Christian conservative leaders and organizations in fact support immigration reform, including Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals and members of the Evangelical Immigration Table.


Topics: , , ,

Share This

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.
  • Yeah, so what? I don’t care what “anti-immigration groups” are or aren’t, or who labels them what or doesn’t label them. They’re doing the right thing.

    Pray, why do we have to square all our political desires with some ideology or orthodoxy? It’s like I said here awhile back, inordinate adherence to an abstract ideology when doing so hurts your personal or collective well being is a form of mental illness. If immigration restriction isn’t conservative, then conservatism is the problem.

    • evilsandmich

      It’s such a bad idea that there is no rational basis for it from any political point of view. Outside of a handful of treacherous lefties/business types and clueless do-gooders, there’s zero support for this bilge.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      I think the overpopulation thing is a great angle. Do we really want a trillion people here?

      • Growth qua growth is a bad thing. To wit: My waistline.

        And also: The total number of people in a country or in the world.

      • Not to mention, people who contribute nothing—but, take everything.

        • rick

          The quality of the people should be just as important as the quantity.
          Would you rather live in a mostly white America of 250 million inhabitants (which is where things would be if not for the 1965 immigration act) or in a country barreling towards a half a billion mostly non-white, dim-witted and violence prone peasants?

      • Every sane and rational human being should be extremely concerned about overpopulation. It’s not even an angle. Overpopulation is simply a recipe for massively turbulent times ahead if not addressed and corrected very quickly. A finite planet with finite resources and no regard to population controls is a problem that will naturally correct itself. And when I say naturally, I don’t mean the kind of natural where everyone waltzes off into the sunset and lives happily ever after.

        I would really like to avoid all of that violence, death and destruction if at all possible.

        • Alexandra

          Well, overpopulation isn’t even an issue. You need an average of 2.2 children per couple to maintain. Back in the 90s the worldwide average was 1.8–below replacement level, so we’re having negative growth. I saw some data a while back that indicates that by 2050 we’ll have a sharp drop-off in population.

          It’s funny, though, how whites are discouraged from having “too many” children, yet blacks and other “minorities” are basically paid to breed. Funny how some of these liberals scream about overpopulation yet are okay with this, ya know? They hate the “full quiver” movement.

          My husband and I have only one child, and it’s because of finances. Probably because our taxes are going to pay for a black and Hispanic population explosion, go figure.

          • Whatever data you saw sounds like it was a projection based on more developing countries slowly drifting toward first-world status, and with that it is “assumed” that the people in those countries will produce less kids because of some innate sense to not produce more than what you can provide for. Does that sound anything like what we see with black and brown societies?

            Unfortunately, most of the optimistic predictions I have seen fail to factor in the reality that with a modernized country, and with the availability of modern medicine, people will live much longer in those countries. And even a small jump in life expectancy on a universal scale will substantially increase population levels.

            I watched some speech given by a population researcher that said the only way to slow down and reverse overpopulation is to bring all countries up to the same standards and levels of development. I’m sure that this works in some universe of rational humans who all mimic the most redeeming characteristics of each other, but this isn’t that universe. The time and effort the “quality” people will have to spend propping up dysfunctional societies of dregs will most assuredly drop population levels for one while the other will continue to exponentially rise. In fact, take a look at society today and you can see it action.

            We(humans) gain over 100,000 people every day. And, like I said, nature will eventually correct the problem if we don’t. The difference is that we can find a sensible solution with virtually no suffering, and nature’s solution is like a reinforced concrete and steel wall 100 ft thick, and we’re in a car heading straight for it with no seatbelt and going 1,000 mph. It’s going to be violent. Hell, black people kill each other and us for pennies, shoes, and even just for gang initiations. Imagine what happens when the stores close and shelves are empty.

    • Conservatives who don’t control any immigration, are like Conservatives who allow thousands of strange men to parade through their daughter’s bedroom.

      • The same can be said about constitutionalists who pander to non-whites.

  • WmarkW

    In the 60s-70s, the major demographic issue among liberals was population growth. We had to stabilize it, or we couldn’t maintain the American lifestyle.

    Somehow that turned into the need for non-whites to keep up the growth numbers.
    Where did that come from?

    • sbuffalonative

      Ah yes, the buzz word “growth”. We have to “grow” the economy to save it. More people, more consumers, more financial interactions, leading to more “growth”.
      Our current business, financial economic model is nothing more than a Ponze scheme run by confidence men (from which the term “con” men is derived).
      What the model doesn’t take into account is that as the population increases, there is a greater need to care for those who won’t or can’t produce. Eventually the needs of the non-producers are going to overwhelm the output of the producers.
      The system will collapse as does every Ponze scheme. Only this is going to change America forever. There will be no going back and no way to correct the system.

      • MBlanc46

        There is a significant segment of the political class who support economic growth as a necessity for prosperity. They never seem to address the question of when the population or the GDP might be big enough.

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      1960 Census: The U. S. was 88.6 percent non-Hispanic White.
      1970 Census: The U. S. was 87.5 percent non-Hispanic White.

      Too many whites in the 60s and 70s. That’s why population growth was a liberal hobbyhorse. Today, after LBJ’s Immigration Act, immigration is burying the white population. So naturally immigration — not population restriction — is a liberal hobbyhorse.

    • The__Bobster

      Libtards only want the White population to be controlled.

      • Anon12

        I think the Republicans also want the White population controlled. Since they are now preaching for more 3rd world immigration to bolster our “declining” birth rates….I heard far too many “conservative” talk show hosts try to pacify the hispanic people here by saying, “I am only against ILLEGAL immigration and I wouldn’t care if ALL of Mexico came here as long as they do it through the legal channels”!!! What kind of insanity is that? That is when I started to hate these people such as Hannity, etc. etc.

      • MarcusTrajanus

        Not true. What liberals think is that non-Whites will control their populations just like Whites and that all it will take is education, available birth control, raising the status of women, etc. The problem is that this assumed that the dark races are just White people with a different skin colour. We know that the vast majority of blacks, for example, can’t be educated, that they won’t use condoms/the pill even if we gave each of them a free lifetime supply.

        • Michael_C_Scott

          Black Africans resisted the use of condoms for AIDS prevention precisely because of the fact that it would also reduce their birthrate. If getting them to do it just to save their lives is so problematical, why would they voluntarily limit their numbers for a less pressing reason like preserving the environment?

          • MBlanc46

            I thought that it was because most Africans think that diseases are caused by witchcraft not microbes, so they didn’t get the idea of preventing the transmission of the virus by preventing transmission of bodily fluids.

    • Grim Jim

      The question is ridiculous to one who is quite aware of where this insanity came from.Go immediately to THE OCCIDENTAL OBSERVER for the answer to your question.

    • MBlanc46

      I’m not sure that it’s “liberals” who support immigration for that reason.

    • ProWhite son of Jacob

      Rapid immigration ruined the American Dream, and then the 1950s-era optimism. It ruined everything. All these politicians are talkin about “moving forward.” I just want the 50s back. Minus the Cold War, and with the technological, medical, and scientific advances we’ve made (in spite of multiculturalism, not because of it).

  • JohnEngelman

    This depends on how one defines “conservative.” Employers want to flood the market with low wage labor to raise their profits.

    • Erasmus

      They’re not conservative. They’re just greedy bastards who find useful tools among the republicans.

      Selling one’s fellow citizens into de facto slavery has never been a true conservative position.

      • JohnEngelman

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

        – John Kenneth Galbraith

        • bluffcreek1967

          I guess it all depends on how one defines selfishness. What is selfish to one may not be selfish to another. Often the one who less productive or industrious will bemoan others who had the sense and wisdom to invest prudently and take the needed steps to be prosperous in business.

          Either way, I won’t defend everything our American businesses and corporations do. But recognize, as Erasmus above had posted, they are not necessarily conservative and many of them simply use Republicans for their own interests. Trying to get hordes of illegal aliens to work for you as cheap labor or moving to a third-world nation to do the same is NOT representative of true conservative principles.

          • JohnEngelman

            Conservatism has various definitions. For many Americans who call themselves “conservative” it does not amount to much more than hatred for taxes and gun control laws.

            George W. Bush turned a growing budget surplus into a growing deficit. Most Americans lost ground economically during his presidency. He started two expensive wars he could not win. Consequently the conservative brand has lost some of its cachet.

            Many Americans who used to call themselves “conservatives” prefer the term “libertarian” although many of these favor unlibertarian policies, like restrictions on immigration.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Very interesting. You seem to have a mixed bag of beliefs, so to speak. But that’s not a bad thing per se because it shows that you’re able to think on your own and judge issues independently based on their own merit.

            I wouldn’t agree with a good portion that you have written on this site, but you always have something thoughtful to make us think about. I like that you are pessimistic about human nature and human potential. I like that you value wisdom in tradition. These are all good things and somewhat separates you from the more modern liberal I suppose.

          • JohnEngelman

            More than anything else I love facts that can be documented. I also enjoy and appreciate unlimited political debate, although not unlimited campaign financing.

            During the Cold War it was dangerous in the United States to criticize capitalism, advocate capitalism, or defend Communist countries. That was unfortunate. Now it is dangerous to maintain that individuals and races differ in native and average native intelligence and predisposition toward crime. That is unfortunate.

            I believe that genes are more important than anything else in determining ability levels, personality, and character. Believing in the importance of genes pushes me in both directions politically. On the one hand I believe that social reform and social welfare spending cannot solve social problems that are caused by personal shortcomings. On the other hand, I see little moral significance in the distribution of wealth and income.

            Hard work, honesty, and common decency will keep one out of prison, and usually off of welfare. They will not make one rich. Many rich people exhibit none of those qualities.

          • Anon12

            JE has no use for WHITE Euro tradition….don’t kid yourself. He is a charlatan. He has an Asian fetish if you have read many of his posts. He only changes when it suits him and to get a few “up” votes on here…

          • JohnEngelman

            On several occasions I have stated here that I appreciate the accomplishments of Western civilization, and especially the Western intellectual and cultural tradition. I also appreciate other cultures and civilizations, although I to not think they are of equal value.

          • Anon12

            BTW, just read his comment below mine and you will see he is full of it.

          • Jefferson

            Dubya set Conservatism back many decades. His pathetic term in office is the reason we have the disaster that is Hussein Obama in The White House today.

            I never want to see another Bush in the oval office again. Whether it is Amnesty Jeb or his half breed son.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            George Bush did nothing of the sort, and your claim that he did is sophistry of the purest ray supreme. I don’t know what United States you live in, but the one I’m from has a House of Representatives, and this is where spending bills originate.

        • Svigor

          At least Conservatism has a moral philosophy; liberalism has no philosophy at all. Not even any principles, beyond “who-whom?”

          • JohnEngelman

            What is the moral philosophy of conservatism?

          • Talltrees

            Traditional values.

          • Michael_C_Scott

            Liberalism, summed up is “I will feel morally superior if I take money from X and give it to Y.”

        • Reg

          And “selfishness”, as defined by JKG, is the refusal to give total, unanswered power to seven-foot Canucks too clumsy for professional basketball. Possibly the most damaging immigrant to the US until George Soros came along!

    • MBlanc46

      “Follow the money”. Always a good rule of thumb.

      • JohnEngelman

        Or as they say in the legal profession, “Cui bono?” “Who benefits?”

        • MBlanc46

          It sure isn’t me.

  • GrailQuest

    Rule of thumb: if evangelicals are against it, it must be sound.

    • Cado

      Evangelicals are far removed from reality. They are suckers for bad science, bad research, and bad preaching. They get all their guidance from their local figureheads, and you’d dare not speak against something an elder of the church says, much less their charismatic leaders. They’re stuck in forcefed dogma. How do I know all this? I grew up in Pentecostal churches and attended a certified Pentecostal college for two years, graduating with an A average. Learn to think for yourselves, sheeple.

      • Erasmus

        You forgot to add suckers for bad hair, as well. Over half the preachers on TBN look as if they’re wearing Halloween fright-wigs.

        • Anon12

          I haven’t watched TBN in over 20 years! They are so phony and when I finally woke up to the truths I avoid today’s thing called Christianity. It is nothing to the real Christianity that our people USED to practice many eons ago.

          • A number of years ago, I read a story about how a high up executive with a mainstream TV network visited the the TBN studios in Dallas, and awed at how opulent they were. Mind you, this was an exec with a network that isn’t exactly some basement YouTube operation.

            There’s something about a “Christian” TV network being so opulent and so flush with cash that strikes me as un-Christian. After all, our Lord and Savior lived his corporeal human life practicing a working class profession (to borrow the modern vernacular), and he drove banksters out of a house of worship using physical force. And with His own words as told in Matt. 6:24, He made that point perfectly clear.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Good point. The apostles of Christ were poor, and most were not remunerated for their work. The early church pastors, in addition, were not paid or salaried (1 Timothy 5:17-18 doesn’t support that either, but I can’t get into that here). The point is, true shepherds did not place a financial burden on their churches. They actually had jobs and Paul urged the elders to work with their own hands (Acts 20).

          • MBlanc46

            I believe that Lenny Bruce said something like “Any preacher who has more than two suits is a hustler”.

          • Svigor

            Heresy is a word modern Christians need to re-familiarize themselves with; they’re surrounded by it on all sides, if they don’t in fact ascribe to it themselves.

        • bluffcreek1967

          This is overwhelmingly Charismatic and Pentecostal Christian groups that are NOT representative of Evangelicals by and large. Anyone who watches TBN and thinks that is NT Christianity simply doesn’t understand historic, orthodox Christianity. Neither do they understand the compelling arguments against non-cessationism by cessationism biblical scholars.

          The ones weeping, wearing the bad hair and begging for money are the religious charlatans who have infiltrated our churches today. They are NOT representative of the sort of humility and sound doctrine taught by the apostles. But when people know little of the NT and historic Christian doctrine, they will fall for anything that purports to be ‘Christian’ or ‘Evangelical.’

      • Anon12

        Today’s Christians ( I am a Christian) have been so dumbed down and I will wager they never read the Bible and if they do they would not understand a word of it from Genesis on. If no one gets Genesis 1 and then Genesis 2 (two separate creations) they will never understand who ,what and the why of the Bible.

        They only believe the one verse charleys and the “feel good, love everybody” mantra. They are very responsible for mixed race marriages, nonwhite immigration, bringing in 3rd world refugees, adoption of African kids, etc. etc. The wolves in sheeps clothing in the pulpits learned it all from their wolves in sheeps clothing in the seminaries. I have nothing to do with the pc, inclusive, MS churches of today

      • bluffcreek1967

        Growing up in a Pentecostal church and attending a Pentecostal college is not a very good résumé for criticizing Evangelicals at large. The Pentecostal churches are often less than orthodox in their theology, are rampant with the modern faith teachers, and deeply influenced by over-emotional Charismatic practices. In other words, all you’ve really told us is that you were part of an over-emotional, aberrant denomination that’s riddled with unorthodox theology and weird, emotionally manipulating church services. I know because I started out over 30 years ago with them until I learned the truth about Charismania and historic, apostolic NT theology.

        I won’t defend everything done in the name of Christianity or Evangelicalism, but you are naive indeed if you think that Pentecostalism is representative of true, Evangelical thought. I think you need to read a little wider than perhaps you have.

    • The irony is that white Christian evangelical lay people poll the most like us on immigration questions, compared to lay people of all other major faith systems in America. Why there is this day and night disconnect between the lay and the leaders on this issue, I really don’t know. But I wish the lay would understand how their leaders are making fools of them on this immigration treachery and crack down on it.

      • Eagle_Eyed

        This reason is because our “leaders” have little to no sway regarding politics of the Evangelical movement(s)–unlike the Catholic Church, Evangelical Protestants are a decentralized bunch. (Even many lay Catholics oppose illegal immigration, use contraception, etc. against the teachings of their supposedly infallible clergy.) So many of us do “crack down” against false teachers who wear the banner of “Evangelical.” But another comes the next day.

        Unfortunately many in Evangelical circles have moved left on issues like “gay marriage,” but this is a reflection of the cultural zeitgeist and misplaced compassion. Some deny the existence of hell, replacing the clear teachings of Jesus himself with a watered-down, 21st century universalist philosophy. These “leaders,” like the ones who preach open-borders, I just ignore. They care more about the praise of secular man or their own feelings than the truth.

        • jambi19

          “They care more about the praise of secular man or their own feelings than the truth.” May I modify it to “They care more about their feelings, and the praise of secular men then they do about the Truth.”? Excellent statement I think I will use as a rebuttal in the near future.

        • bluffcreek1967

          Excellent points Eagle Eyed! It’s often assumed that being a race realist or opposing open borders is racist! But it’s not in the least. There is nothing in the Bible that prohibits believers from recognizing racial differences and cultural differences among humans. In fact, there are several passages quite suggestive of it. Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, it’s normal and quite perceptive for us to recognize genuine differences, abilities, intelligence, and temperaments among the many races and ethnicities in the world. God is NOT against such obvious and common knowledge. It’s only when we are duped by the PC nonsense that we pretend it doesn’t exist or try to wish it out of existence. Sadly, many modern Christians fall into this trap.

          • Eagle_Eyed

            The race-realist, Christian website “Faith and Heritage” was a big help to me. I had attributed racial differences and the general distrust/antipathy of nations/rivals/enemies to the fact that we live in a fallen world as sons of Adam. While this is true, we can also see through Old Testament texts that God intended for nations to exist as ontologically distinct entities–that different races and ethnicities arose out of Providence and the goodness of God. So it is good to feel a kinship to one’s compatriots in the same way we have a unique bond to our families. And much like splitting up families causes emotional distress, hurt, and anguish; so too does destroying nations by unprovoked war or egalitarian immigration.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Again good points, and I will definitely check out tat website. Thanks!

          • Svigor

            Any Christian who thinks Christianity is “anti-racist” simply does not know his Scripture (at all), and is almost certainly a heretic.

          • Anon12

            Exactly. They will answer one day for their heresy. One of my favorite sites.


          • Anon12

            Here is one that really tells the truth about our RACIAL Christian heritage.


          • psbindy

            Thanks Eagle_Eyed. I checked out the F&H website per your recommendation. Great stuff for the Christian realist. I’ll be a regular there as I have been at amren for ten years or more. This is my first comment here.

    • Svigor

      Yes, if one absolutely must have a quick cheat-sheet (as opposed to paying attention and thinking for oneself), that’s as good as any.

      Oh, wait, you said evangelicals. I thought you said liberals/leftoids.

  • sbuffalonative

    Environmental, population, and resource concerns are only three elements of the immigration debate but they are not to be dismissed as wacky fringe ideas. We can’t bring the population of the world here without consequences.
    If liberals see a problem that is real and their concerns are legitimate to me, I will welcome their support.

    • JohnEngelman

      Liberals like to point out that the United States cannot afford to be the world’s police agency. This is true. However, they forget that the United States cannot afford to be the world’s welfare agency either.

  • Jennifer

    I think being a “Christian Conservative ” and being a “Conservative” are two different things. Being a Conservative I agree with Dr. Tanton and think he should join Am Res!

    • Eagle_Eyed

      A conservative, in my mind, is someone who accepts (explicitly or implicitly) the existence of the Natural Order. In other words, mankind is limited by his corrupt nature, emotional impulses, biology, etc. Society cannot be engineered toward utopia due to circumstances outside the minds of the engineers.

      So how does this apply to immigration? Simply put, race is biologically real, and people tend to associate/gravitate toward people like themselves. Thus the best recipe for social peace domestically is for a country to maintain a sense of sameness. A common language, culture, history, law, ethnicity, etc. binds us together; it gives us a unity which separates us from other nations with their own unique systems.

      • Anon12

        Thus the best recipe for social peace domestically is for a country to
        maintain a sense of sameness. A common language, culture, history, law,
        ethnicity, etc. binds us together; it gives us a unity which separates
        us from other nations with their own unique systems.


        Much of what John Jay said in the Federalist papers. Smart man, that John Jay.

        • Bossman

          John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers in collaboration with Alexander Hamilton and Alexander Hamilton wrote most of it. Alexander himself was born on a small Caribbean Island. His father was Scottish and his mother was an island-born woman of French background.

  • Erasmus

    ALL arguments in favor of amnesty are now outright bizarre. Given the failure to control immigration since 1986, there is NO good argument for another amnesty. That is why its supporters must now rely on lies and half-truths.

  • Seek

    This author of this piece has it backwards. It’s people like Dr. John Tanton, a true patriot and conservationist, who are the immigration reformers. And it’s “Rah-Rah-Red State” types who write for evangelical publications and the Wall Street Journal who are the people who make reform impossible. For them, “more” always means better — even it means more Mexican indigents and criminals.

    • Anon12

      I cannot stand that Wall Street Journal! They are on the radio every morning about 5am when I wake up……Funny, I used to always think they were conservative…Don’t know where I ever got that idea. Oh and all the farmers (White) are all for these mexicans pouring into our country. I also listen to Ag news and I have to turn them off before I break my radio.

      • Bossman

        There was a time when being a conservative meant upholding the founding ideals of the U.S.A. such as: Personal Liberty, Political Freedom and Social Justice. Now it seems that conservatives have been re-defined to include bigots, idiots, paranoid xenophobes and racists.

        • Anon12

          Who re-defined them? People like yourself? I will side with a White bigot, racist xenophobe any day of the week…That is what our White Founders were by today’s pc deragatory meaning of those bogus words. Didn’t you know “racist” is a made up word to hit Whites over the head with? Maybe you need to check it out..

        • MBlanc46

          Those ideas are the defining ideas of liberalism. I guess what that shows is that the liberal/conservative vocabulary is almost completely inadequate for real political analysis.

          • Bossman

            OK, I’ve no choice but to agree with you. I should also remind you that this country was founded on the principles of classic 18th century liberalism.

          • MBlanc46

            Or even 17th century liberalism. Locke was the big intellectual influence on the revolutionaries. I don’t see much use for these terms in dealing with concrete situations such as race or immigration. Not only are they theoretically very limited, they unnecessarily alienate potential allies.

    • Bossman

      How do you differentiate between a “conservationist” and a racist? Is every Mexican a criminal? The whole world is rushing to invest in Mexico these days, so that means it does have some potential to be a great region of North America.

      • Anon12

        Are you nuts? Yes, every Mexican is a criminal in one way or another. They were allowed in here by other criminals. On our local news all you see is Mexicans committing one crime after another. The jail is full of them.

      • Michael_C_Scott

        Every illegal alien is a criminal. The term “illegal” should provide a clue.

  • The__Bobster


    Soren Dayton [Message him on Twitter] describes himself in his Twitter Profile as “Prism Public Affairs, Republican political operative, blogger, husband, cook. All opinions my own.” Actually, his opinions aren’t his own—they’re extremely derivative.

    His guilt-by-association attack on immigration restriction in the Daily Caller today, Opinion: Leaders of anti-immigration groups aren’t exactly conservative , is based on material from

    The evangelical publication World Magazine

    The Wall Street Journal

    the New York Times

    The Human Life Review (a hit piece by Mario H. Lopez)

    The Wall Street Journal again (support for his contention that REAL Christians support immigration reform)

    The REAL Christians turn out to be Southern Baptist Dr. Richard Land and the Evangelical Immigration Table, a Treason Lobby group on the Religious Left. For some reason he doesn’t directly quote the Southern Poverty Law Center, but of course he doesn’t have to—Human Life Review and the New York Times do it for him.

    It’s the usual garbage about immigration restrictionists being abortionists, eugenicists, and so on, repeatedly debunked here on VDARE.com. It includes an attack on Dr. John Tanton, a great patriot whom even some mainstream restrictionists seem unwilling to defend from the PC enforcers. See The Tale Of John Tanton: CIS’ Krikorian, Kammer Make Fatal Concessions To SPLC.

  • Extropico

    The notion that being concerned with leaving a viable, salubrious environment for our posterity is not conservative is a concentrated canard. These cheap labor anti-Whites are reduced to grasping at straws in their advocacy of amnesty.

  • Jefferson

    Leaders of anti-immigration groups aren’t exactly conservative ? If that is true, why is there not a single Democrat in Washington who vocally opposes “The Gang Of 8” ?

    All of the Democrats in Washington are ejaculating in their pants at the mere thought of a Browner America once amnesty is passed.

  • bigone4u

    When San Antonio was flooded with illegals back during the Clinton years and the economy was good, here are a few examples of what a person faced:
    1. Huge throngs of Mesicans at the supermarket because stores couldn’t be remodeled or built from scratch to accomodate the hoards of newcomers. Long lines and wait times.
    2. Spanish babbling everywhere you went.
    3. More petty crime.
    4. More drunk drivers on the road.
    5. Uninsured drivers.
    6. Traffic jams constantly since new roads take a long time to build.
    7. Apartment shortages.
    8. Five families renting a house together. Multiple cars parked on the streets.
    9. Panhandlers with signs, “Will work for food.”
    10. Everybody pissed off all the time because of the stress.
    I’ll stop there to make a point I’ve never seen. I suspect that illegals increase stress on everyone and probably increase the mortality rate through the stress effect of more population. If nobody’s ever done research on that issue, I wish they would.

    • Svigor

      Experiments have been done that show once you put enough rats together in a cage, they turn one one another and rip each other to pieces. And no, they weren’t deprived of food. Just space.

      • bigone4u

        That makes sense doesn’t it. I’ll add that I believe it was here on Amren recently that there was a story about how human diversity in a neighborhood increases stress or maybe unhappiness.

    • newscomments70

      “8. Five families renting a house together. Multiple cars parked on the streets.”
      You forgot to add that they commonly park cars in the lawn…and work on cars all day and all night.

      • Anon12

        Where I live there are plenty of mexican chop shops….They have been raided so many times yet more keeps popping up.

        • MBlanc46

          One of them got my wife’s car a few years back. The police just blew her off.

  • LHathaway

    A one worlder might say, movement and immigration is a human right, and that allowing immigration into the USA is also utilitarian in that immigrants will have more opportunities and better health care. The problem is (ignoring carbon-footprints) that immigrants will breed here and their absence over there will free up room for those left behind to over populate even more. At least that’s how I see it.

  • freddy_hills

    Big Business and industry lobbyists have been throwing money at immigration reform trying to buy people off. It looks like whoever wrote this might have gotten a taste. So what if CIS and FAIR care about the environment? I care about the environment, too. And I’d prefer my environment were free of illegals.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    So they bash us as a bunch of nativist, toothless yokels, and when that’s proven wrong, they bash us for not being a bunch of nativist, toothless yokels.

  • IstvanIN

    A true liberal would understand that a modern, liberal society is impossible with a third-world population. I believe in stopping all non-white, non-Christian immigration and encouraging emigration of those third-worlders we currently have. I believe the US would be better off with a much smaller, all white population. I believe we should protect the environment. I believe in avoiding foreign entanglements. I believe in representative government. I believe in treating women and gays fairly and protecting the rights of minorities while respecting the wishes of the majority. I believe my people have a right to a homeland. I believe we can trade with the world without inviting the world/invading the world. I believe in capitalism but am against laisez-faire capitalism, I also believe there is a place for government in the scheme of things.

    I have been called a right-wing extremist by friends and family, yet I consider myself a liberal. What passes for liberalism today is anything but, then again what passes for conservatism isn’t conservative. I guess I am an anachronism.

    In summary, being against immigration doesn’t make one conservative, just sensible.

    • Jane Johnson

      Sounds about right to me, except the capitalism part. We haven’t had the laisez-faire variety for quite some time, and the crony style nonsense coming out of Washington is a joke, so what form do you think capitalism should take? I’m especially interested in your opinion regarding companies and industries (like defense contractors) doing business with the federal government.

      • IstvanIN

        You need government to enforce contracts and provide a basic framework for business to operate in. Labor laws, health and safety regulations are a good things. Environmental protection, the FDA to evaluate new drugs and medical devices, the UDSA to inspect food processing facilities are a good idea. Banking, Insurance and brokerage regulations are needed, and are probably too liberal right now. The problem is that government is too big, with too many overlapping layers of bureaucracy, with too many regulations. We have too many unelected bureaucrats with too much power. We need to shrink government drastically while still protecting the public. Unfortunately government agencies never go away, they just grow.

        As for government contracts, there should be an open bidding process where the government says this is what we need, these are the specifications, companies bid and the company that can provide the product or service for the lowest cost, while meeting the contracts provisions, should win. There shouldn’t be back room deals.

  • blarg

    So we need to open the flood gates because one commie happens to support the older environmentalist ideals of anti-immigration from before the groups were taken over by jews?

  • MarcusTrajanus

    “what value they actually place on human life and human dignity.” Of course, everyone knows human beings live long, healthy and happy lives in polluted, overcrowded environments, so being an environmentalist must mean you hate people. Seriously, it’s this kind of lunatic anti-environment ideas that drove me away from conservatism and the “right wing”. I’m now proud to be and environmentalist, pro-abortion, pro-eugenics, anti-Third World immigration White supremacist.

  • Anti-immigration video called

    “AntiRacist Hitler”

  • opposition to immigration is not conservative. Conservative means rightwing. Rightwing means ‘for the rich and against the majority.’

    Mass immigration destroys the american majority by 1) lowering wages and 2) decreasing unity among the majority and thereby decreasing democracy and making it harder for the majority to control their own government.

    If you are against mass immigration, you are true-leftist, not conservative. TrueLeftism is for the majority. The liberals are fakeleftists because they support the nonwhite minority, which furthers the agenda of the rich. THat is NOT leftism.

    I am against mass immigration and therefore I am for the majority and against the rich. I call myself a radical centrist.

    Please stop associating anti-immigration with conservatism. Conservatism is pro-immigration. If you are against mass immigration you are for the majority and therefore a leftist. But you can call yourself a radical centrist like me because americans are so ignorant that they associate leftism with pro-immigration.

    • Immigration patriotism can label itself whatever it wants or be labeled what it will, or adopt or carry no label at all. Not only will I be for it, I’ll take whatever label it adopts for itself or others affix to it if there is one. Just because it’s the right policy. Ideologies and orthodoxies exist to serve people, not the other way around. When people start serving ideologies, the ideologies become cults and its advocates become cultists.

      • is it just a coincidence that 98 percent of all the anti-immigration, anti-multiculti people who write on the internet call themselves conservative? That is no coincidence.

        This leads me to believe that the anti-immigration, anti-multiculti ‘movement’ on the internet is one of two things: 1) paid by grants or other monies from think tanks or foundations or seeking to be paid such monies or 2) just in it for the money and so they glom on to the conservative movement in order to get more views or clicks or donations or whatever.

        The liberals and the conservatives uphold ‘platform purity’, which means in essence that you have to accept as a whole a bundle of ‘beliefs’ on certain issues: if you are ‘conservative’ you have to be 1) against immigration (although of course few conservative politicians are against immigration anymore), 2) against progressive taxation 3) against universal healthcare and strong social safety net), and so forth. I think you can fill in the rest of the bundle.

        If you are a liberal you have to 1) be for immigration 2) have a core loathing for whites, esp. white blue collar males 3) worship nonwhites 4) be for affirmative action, race spoils 4) be for progressive taxation and a strong social safety net 5) be for gay rights. I think you can fill in the rest of the liberal bundle.

        It is just a coincidence that the anti-immigration/anti-multiculti movement on the Net adheres to this bundle of beliefs?

        Where are the folks on the net that say ” I am anti-immigration/anti-multiculti but I want a strong social safety net and want to tax the rich”

        What an amazing statistical anomaly that this is the case. Something funny going on here.

        • Funny, I was just sorta gleaning on this sort of thing in an e-mail to Jack Ryan. Here’s the part relevant to this discussion, paraphrased:

          I wish I had the ability to snap my fingers and with it make the concepts (really, cults) of political ideology and political partisanship disappear from the minds of white people. It’s such a liberating feeling when your mind is free and you can come up with and advocate the best solution for a given problem without having to square it with some ideological orthodoxy or party bosses. But it doesn’t mean I’m some bereft-of-principle jelly spine: It’s like someone who I know once told me when I first cut my teeth in the pro-white sphere: Race comes first, everything else is ultimately negotiable.

          Now, as for your contention: No, nobody is being “paid” or is “in it for the money,” because nobody has to — It’s human nature to organize around particularities. It’s just that too many white people these days are organizing around the wrong kind of particularities — They’re organizing around cult-like ideologies or political parties when they should be organizing around the concrete expressions of race and peoplehood. There’s a reason why almost all anti-immig white people call themselves or seem “conservative,” — because they hold to the concrete definition of the word, not the abstract ideological cult that it really means in our environment today. This is why I wish they’d ditch “conservative” and “liberal” and “centrist” and “moderate” or what not.

    • Sherman_McCoy

      Depends. If you are against mass immigration because it takes jobs away from US citizens and give them to cheap labor, then you MIGHT be a leftist, but I haven’t found any leftists who DON’T support amnesty. If you are against it because of what the overpopulation will do to the US environment, again, you MIGHT be leftist. I am against it for ALL reasons, and true conservatism, as opposed to NEO-conservatism is against it.

      • fakeleftists is what they are. My point is that one of the things that is wrong with america is that no one knows what left means.

        • Sherman_McCoy

          And my point is that both parties are corrupt to the core and care not a whit for the people whose jobs are being taken.

      • Bossman

        Most white racists prefer to associate themselves with the Right.

        • Sherman_McCoy

          “Racist” and “the Right” are both loaded terms which seem to mean whatever one’s adversary wishes to mean. Noticing the color of the perpetrators of the majority of violent crimes in the US and preferring to distance one’s self and family from them in general though you have nothing against other groups earns you the racist label. Recognizing the destructive policies of today’s Dems gets you labeled a supporter of the GOP neocon globalist elites, or the mindless “any war for Israel” party. I am neither. If being in favor of American immigration law as it was before 1965 makes me racist on the Right, then so be it, but that would be a vast oversimplification.

  • BAW

    I’ve said it before here, and I’ll say it yet once again: Uncontrolled immigration – illegal AND legal – is at cross-purposes with many liberal issues and concerns. For example, liberals care a lot about preserving the environment, reducing impacts on climate change, protecting endangered species and habitats, and conserving energy. Overpopulation is at the root of almost every environmental issue. Were it not for post-1965 immigration, the US population would have stabilized in 1970. The more people, the more building, energy consumption and pollution.

    Liberals also care a lot about “working people” and “working families.” Uncontrolled immigration causes the labor supply to increase while demand stays the same or decreases…which reduces wages and reduces the power leverage workers have. Plus, a large immigrant workforce is a docile workforce, which means they’re not likely to complain about poor working conditions, long hours, or questionable management practices.

    In addition, liberals are worried about “the growing gap between the rich and the poor.” One of the surest ways to increase poverty is to import lots of poor people.

    On an unrelated note, many Christian denominations support, condone, or turn a blind eye to uncontrolled immigration because they see immigrants as the future occupants of their pews. While decreasing white birth rates are a factor, many people are leaving because they can’t stand the hostility toward science and hypocrisy.

    • Funruffian

      I’m not sure if liberals care about working class families. Liberals care about themselves. They may profess to uphold all those ideals, but let’s face it, they are only generous with other people’s money. This is why liberal ideology is filled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies. Why promote immigration if it is only going to destroy the working class, raise taxes and pollute the ecosystem??
      I believe that the whole Green- movement was just a sham to raise money for other interests. It wasn’t real or genuine from its inception, a ponzie scheme.

  • Brady

    Readers who weren’t following Amren then might want to check out the article from the April 2000 issue, “Don’t Write Off The Liberals”.