The Progressive Case for Reducing Immigration

Philip Cafaro, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 19, 2015

I’m a philosophy professor specializing in ethics and political philosophy, and like many of my fellow academics, I’m a political progressive. I value economic security for workers and their families, and support a much more equal distribution of wealth, strong and well-enforced environmental-protection laws, and an end to racial discrimination in the United States. I want to maximize the political power of common citizens and limit the influence of large corporations. My political heroes include the three Roosevelts (Teddy, Franklin, and Eleanor), Rachel Carson, and Martin Luther King Jr.

I also want to reduce immigration into the United States. If this combination strikes you as odd, you aren’t alone. Friends, political allies–even my mother the social worker–shake their heads (or worse) when I bring up the subject. I’ve been called a “nativist” and a “racist” (thankfully not by Mom), been picketed on my own campus, and had close academic friendships strained.

I can understand why progressives embrace mass immigration (though that embrace is shared, I can’t help pointing out, by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal). This is not an easy issue for us, because vital interests are at stake, and no one set of policies can accommodate all of them. Consider two stories from among the hundreds I’ve heard while researching this subject:


Any immigration policy will have winners and losers. So claims the Harvard University economist George J. Borjas, a leading authority on the economic impacts of immigration. My interviews with Javier and Tom suggest why Borjas is right.

If we enforce our immigration laws, then good people like Javier and his family will have their lives turned upside down. And if we reduce the numbers of legal immigrants–contrary to popular belief, most immigration into the United States is legal immigration, under Congressionally mandated levels, currently 1.1 million annually–then good people in Mexico (and Guatemala, and Vietnam, and the Philippines . . . ) will have to forgo opportunities to create better lives here.

On the other hand, if we fail to enforce our laws or repeatedly grant amnesty to people who, like Javier, are in the country illegally, then we forfeit the ability to set limits on immigration. And if we increase immigration, then many hard-working men and women, like Tom and his wife and children, will continue to see their economic fortunes decline.

Neither of those options is appealing, particularly when you talk to the people most directly affected by our immigration policies. Still, they appear to be the options we have: Enforce our immigration laws, or don’t enforce them; reduce immigration levels, increase them, or hold them about where they are. How should we choose?

Acknowledging trade-offs–economic, environmental, social–is the beginning of wisdom. We should not exaggerate conflicts or imagine them where they don’t exist, but neither can we ignore them.

There are a number of other choices that we must confront: Cheaper prices for new houses versus good wages for construction workers. Faster economic growth and growing economic inequality versus slower growth and a more egalitarian society. Increasing ethnic diversity in America versus stabilizing our population. Accommodating more people versus preserving wildlife habitat and productive farmlands. Creating more opportunities for foreigners to work in the United States versus pressuring foreign elites to share wealth and opportunities with their fellow citizens in their own countries.

The best approaches to immigration policy would make such trade-offs explicit, minimize them where possible, and choose fairly between them when necessary. Which brings me back to the progressive argument for reducing immigration into the United States.

Consider first the economic impact of current immigration policies, starting with some key numbers. Since 1965, Congress has increased immigration levels half a dozen times, raising legal immigration into the United States from 290,000 to approximately 1.1 million people annually. That is more than four times as high as any other country. Crucially, post-1965 immigration has been concentrated among less-skilled, less-educated workers. According to a study by Borjas, from 1980 to 1995, immigration increased the number of college graduates in the American work force by 4 percent while increasing the number of workers without high-school diplomas by 21 percent.

The results have been predictable. In economic sectors with large percentages of immigrant workers, wages have been driven down and benefits have been slashed. Employers have broken unions, often helped by immigrant replacement workers. Long-term unemployment among poorer Americans has greatly increased. Mass immigration is not the sole cause of those trends, but it appears to have played an important role. Borjas contends that during the 1970s and 1980s, each immigration-driven 10-percent increase in the number of workers in a particular field in the United States decreased wages in that field by an average of 3.5 percent. More recently, studying the impact of immigration on African-Americans, Borjas and colleagues found that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the wages of black workers in that group by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a percentage point.


Our era of gross economic inequality, stagnating wages, and persistently high unemployment among less-educated workers would seem like a terrible time to expand immigration. Yet the immigration-reform bill passed by a Democratic Senate in 2013 would have nearly doubled legal immigration levels. President Obama’s recent executive actions to regularize the status of workers in the country illegally respond to genuine humanitarian concerns. Nevertheless, like previous amnesties, they are likely to encourage more illegal immigration by poor but desperate job seekers.

A few years ago, I suggested that progressives truly concerned about growing inequality and the economic well-being of American workers–including recent immigrants–should consider reducing immigration, at least in the short term. Congress can decrease immigration levels as well as raise them, I said. Perhaps a moratorium on nonessential immigration was in order, until the official unemployment rate declined below 5 percent and stayed there for several years, or until real wages for the bottom half of American workers increased by 25 percent or more. While there is debate about the role of immigration reduction in gains by unions, tightening up labor markets after World War II did coincide with the golden age of the American labor movement, a time of high union membership and strong gains in wages and benefits for American workers. It seems worth a try today, particularly given the paucity of other proposals to address the intractable problem of inequality.

I started thinking about limiting immigration 25 years ago, as a graduate student studying American history at the University of Georgia and a budding environmental activist working to kill a dam project in the Southeast. (I still recall my sinking feeling as I read, toward the start of the environmental-impact statement on the Oconee River flood-control project, the 50-year population projections for northeast Georgia. Was it possible that our region’s population was going to grow that fast? And, if so, how could we argue effectively against building a new reservoir? (We couldn’t. The reservoir got built.)

Since that time, I’ve worked on many environmental campaigns, typically at the local or state levels. In every instance–sprawl, destructive off-road vehicle use, water pollution, ski-area expansion, you name it–population growth was worsening the problem we sought to remedy. And in every instance, we decided not to talk about population matters–either because we thought it would be too controversial, or because we couldn’t identify any accessible levers through which to influence population policies.

If they think about population at all, most Americans see it as a problem for the “developing world.” But at 320 million people, the United States is the third-most-populous nation on earth, and given our high per-capita consumption rates and outsize global ecological footprint (carbon emissions, demands on ocean fisheries, and the like), a good case can be made that we are the world’s most overpopulated country right now. Furthermore, our 1 percent annual growth rate–higher than many developing nations–has America on track to double its population by the end of this century.

Whether we look at air pollution or wildlife-habitat losses, excessive water withdrawals from our rivers or greenhouse-gas emissions, Americans are falling far short of creating an ecologically sustainable society–and our large and growing numbers appear to be a big part of the problem. {snip}


Given Americans’ failure to create a sustainable society of 320 million people, creating one with hundreds of millions more inhabitants is even more unlikely. And even if we manage to stumble to the year 2100 with 500 million, 600 million, or 700 million people, our unpromising trajectory with continued mass immigration would be further immense population growth in the following century.


The economic and environmental arguments for reducing immigration in the United States seem clear enough. Why, then, do so many progressives advocate for more immigration? As I’ve learned during dozens of interviews with progressive leaders, the reasons are complex and reflect both the strengths and weaknesses of contemporary American progressivism.

On the positive side, progressives are compassionate. We care about the well-being of would-be immigrants, many of whom are poor and downtrodden. We do not want to tell good people like Javier Morales that they cannot come to America and make better lives for themselves and their families.

We also value diversity. We appreciate the many contributions that immigrants have made and continue to make to American life, and we value the idea of the United States as an open and evolving society.

On the negative side, though, we progressives share our fellow Americans’ lack of discipline and inability to think clearly about limits. The answer to any problem tends to be “more,” even when it should be obvious that the pursuit of more is causing the problem or making it worse. {snip}

Then there is the R word. Progressives are easily frightened by accusations of racism. Immigration debates within the Sierra Club have shown that such accusations can silence or marginalize members concerned about population growth. In my own experience, I’ve found that critics avoid the substance of my arguments, dismissing them as a cover for nefarious intentions. (Philosophers have been teaching our students for at least 2,500 years that ad hominem arguments are fallacious–but, you know, they still sometimes work.) Progressives’ commendable sensitivity to racial concerns can keep us from thinking through what a just and sustainable immigration policy would actually look like.

We need an honest and truly comprehensive debate about immigration and population matters–one that considers Javier and Tom and their grandchildren, along with the many other species that have a right to continued existence. We need to face limits realistically, consider the trade-offs involved in different policy choices, and ask which ones will best serve the common good over the long term. Current immigration policies are ill suited to create an economically just, ecologically sustainable society. We can do better.


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.
  • I could have done without some of the mush mouthed oblivious rhetoric here, but the overall message was right-on. This is what the left wing could be if they cared about something other than electing a new people to elect more blue teamers.

    And that’s the answer that Cafaro doesn’t grasp or doesn’t want to grasp, that it’s all about votes and voters and elections. It’s yet another example of the degenerative nature of democratic republicanism.

    • Oil Can Harry

      That’s true of the white left – excluding thoughtful liberals like this guy and John Engleman.

      As for non-whites they simply care about increasing their numbers (“muh people!”) and don’t give a damn about this country.

    • propagandaoftruth

      “I could have done without some of the mush mouthed oblivious rhetoric here,”

      Not that I suspect the author of being dishonest, but this is the pretty standard “progressive” prelude (apologia pre-strike) that must precede any notion, no matter how sensible, that breaks canon ideology in any appreciable manner.

      I know. Even when a full on hard core libtard “progressive”, I questioned Islamophilia, suggested the word “marriage” be replaced by “civil union” in all laws nationwide to pave the way for fruiter “marriage”, and I pointed out the drawbacks of Affirmative action. Ow.

      When you show a lack of full on harridan style ideological prudery, you have to brace your fellow duckspeakers by this pre-emptive warning/apology thing. Some will still swoop down on you shrieking like a closet Nazi at Altright, but some will be held back long enough for them to actually think about what you are saying.

      To one such as yourself or to me – the darkly enlightened – this worminess is distasteful and weak, but the “progressive” duckspeaker wishing to get noticed by making sense that trumps ideology must tread lightly.

      Most get chopped up pretty nastily regardless and then end up dropping comments off on Amren and Taki’s from time to time.

      • NoMosqueHere

        We do not want to tell good people like Javier Morales that they cannot come to America and make better lives for themselves and their families.


        Actually, we do want to tell them that. If they are truly “good” people they should at least attempt to reform or transform their countries of origin. America is becoming weighed down by such good people; it’s time to take a break and have the good people of the world attend to their own backyards. .

  • Samuel_Morton

    Well, at least he is able to level some sense of sanity, as a liberal with so many conflicting ideologies. Of course, he is still under the spell of egalitarianism, but baby steps.

    It’s telling that he has been called a racist, just for having ONE dissenting belief. For Cultural Marxism, your either all-in, or you’re a despicable outcast.

    • WilmotRobertson

      and that is the definition of a totalitarian belief system; If you are not totally in, you are totally out. There is no middle ground.

      • Uprising

        That’s how it should be, even for us on the right-wing. People need to agree 100% with the race policies we propose. We cannot have a situation where people understand that blacks are a problem, but think mixing with Asians is acceptable..

        • “Baby steps.” First just accept that NOT ALL RACES ARE EQUAL. Just accept that, and the whole house of cards of liberalism will fall down and many problems will solve themselves.

          • Death Penalty

            No i don’t think it will just fall into place by itself. Just look at all the AmReners who are Asian apologists. Yellow-fever runs deep within certain “race realist” circles.

      • Jared van Niekerk

        Totalitarianism: That which isn’t forbidden, is compulsory.

    • MikeofAges

      He is disputing the idea that people are fungible. Can’t do that. Even though black separatists and black nationalists and everyone else with coherent cultural sense insist otherwise, everybody’s the same. And with enough compensatory education, you could teach calculus to a horse. Well, I learned it, up to a point. So there is hope!

  • Frank_DeScushin

    This article doesn’t take into account the Liberal list of priorities. Though Liberals care about the environment and a “living wage”, they most care about not appearing racist. And since Liberals view any call for a reduction in immigration racist, Liberals will never call for immigration to be reduced. To them, we have a duty to house and feed the world’s people of color.

    • Moderate liberals care about not appearing racist. The more extreme, and I will include Eric Holder and Barrack Obama, as well as many in the media, actually want to destroy the “dominant” culture. That would be the White, Christian, Western, European culture. Accept that, and a lot of seemingly contradictory behaviors of liberals start to make sense. Examples? Liberals support unchecked immigration, even though that would reduce the wages and job opportunities of blacks. Liberals support Muslims as well, even though Muslims hate homosexuals and believe in the subordination of women.

  • Luca

    Speaking from experience, I have witnessed that the “new” immigration overcrowds schools, increases crime, causes neighborhood blight, shuts down hospitals, increases population density, lowers wages, steals jobs, ruins industries, reduces the quality of workmanship, raises taxes, causes culture clash, reduces real estate values in certain neighborhoods, increased welfare entitlements and causes a significant reduction in the overall quality of life.

    In other words, it is bad. Plain and simple.

    • Mary

      Yes, absolutely. Too bad there are so many who are willing and eager to embrace all of this and more merely for the opportunity to topple traditional White America.

      • phillyguy

        what’s this country going to be like in the year 2100 when there are 700 million people in U.S.

        • cyrusthevirus

          If the proponents of Agenda 21 have their way there wont be 700 million in the entire world !

        • Mary

          Probably pure, unadulterated h-ll. If things have gotten this bad this quickly, I can only imagine what the situation will be in 85 years.

          • Tarczan

            And by the time most people realize the the destruction and the reasons, it will be too late. Throw in a ten percent musloid population and it will be hell.

        • scottthestrategerist

          Here’s a thought: I pretty much only shop at organic markets and the clientele is overwhelmingly white despite living in a majority-minority city. In three generations of eating GMO, animals become infertile. A few years ago, 96% of the U.S. crop was infected with GMO. (The number is probably less now due to growing awareness of the issue.) A couple of years ago, Trader Joe’s wanted to open a market in a black neighborhood. The community protested and TJs withdrew. My point? Minorities don’t care about GMOs! Maybe they’ll all be infertile in a three generations. Problem solved!

          • phillyguy

            if the Negro can exist eating Popeyes Chicken we’ll need a nuclear bomb to get rid of them.

        • Magician

          a constant American civil war of blacks VS Hispanics…..

    • phillyguy

      the best reply I’ve heard today

    • phillyguy

      the best response I’ve heard today

    • Ultimate187

      It’s been said before, but I don’t think people here are against immigration per se. They are against non-white immigration. If all immigrants were White Europeans, I don’t think there would be nearly this much resistance.

      • Luca

        European immigrants do not demand everything in their language, trash neighborhoods, increase the crime rate, overpopulate with kids they can’t afford, cry discrimination, drive without insurance, etc. In other words, they are willing to assimilate and look for opportunities, not handouts and special privileges.

        • scottthestrategerist

          That’s all true, but even more importantly, they’re ***US***.

        • Dragblacker

          If American immigration policy 100 years ago was the same as it is today (That is, (1) No checking for diseases, (2) A large welfare state, and (3) No expectation to assimilate and learn English, in fact catering to you in your language), you’d have gotten the same result.

          Even when there was anti-immigrant feeling toward the Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc. back then, those three conditions I mentioned compelled them to adapt into the American melting pot. Take the three away, and you have this pseudo Austria-Hungary.

          • Luca

            We still have European immigrants entering the country today and they do not make the same demands, They come here for opportunity and to assimilate.

      • scottthestrategerist

        Trying to win the Captain Obvious award? lol

      • Magician

        Something I notice is, while Eastern European countries are not as stable and prosperous as Western European countries or Nordic countries, their girls sure are outstandingly beautiful

      • antiquesunlight

        Actually, I am against immigration per se. Not necessarily 100%, but I don’t see any good reason why a country of ~320 million needs many more people, if any more at all. We’d be better off getting rid of about 100 million, especially if they are all non-white.

        • Bartholomew_1

          Why “get rid” of 100 million non-whites (which sounds pretty bad, by the way)? Why does the existence of non-whites in our country in and of itself have to mean miscegenation? We have to share a planet; why can’t we share a country? Or, to put it differently, what does a passport have to do with marriage?

          I think we’d have an easier time making common cause with leftists like this and convincing the public at large of the necessity of reducing legal immigration, if we ditched the white homeland rhetoric. It’s just not necessary to preserve the white race. People already marry across borders anyway and will do so even more as the world continues to open up. How exactly do we expect deportation to solve the problem of a dwindling white race?

          • antiquesunlight

            A completely white, or even 90% white, America is an ideal. I think it’s extremely unlikely to happen. My point (unclear, I guess) was not that deporting 100 million non-whites is the most practical solution in our current circumstance but that America would be 100 million times better off if they weren’t here. -100mil > +100mil, if those 100mil aren’t white.

            I’m not certain what your point is with the marriage talk. I never mentioned marriage or miscegenation. There are plenty of problems with a multiracial/multicultural society that have nothing to do with miscegenation. Of course, it is simply a statistical certainty that when you have a diverse society, you will have some amount of mixing. Moving to another country to mate with someone of a different race requires much more effort than meeting someone of a different race at a bar, which means it wouldn’t happen anywhere near as often.

            Sharing a country is completely different from sharing a planet. I share the planet with great white sharks, but I most definitely do not go swimming with them.

            “I think we’d have an easier time making common cause with leftists like this and convincing the public at large of the necessity of reducing legal immigration, if we ditched the white homeland rhetoric. It’s just not necessary to preserve the white race.”

            Preserving the race is not the only thing of importance. We also need to preserve white traditions and culture. It is difficult to do that in a meaningful way when you have many totally different groups competing for the same territory. In any case, an entirely white or mostly white society would obviously have little or no miscegenation, which would in fact help preserve the race.

            Moving to another country to mate with someone of a different race requires much more effort than meeting someone of a different race at a bar, which means it wouldn’t happen anywhere near as often.

          • Bartholomew_1

            I see.

            Well, my point with the marriage talk was that most people here care ultimately about the physical existence of the white race. Not that culture and traditions don’t matter; it’s that they are a distant second to actual white people. I seriously doubt anyone here would find much comfort in knowing that a future, mulatto Britain, for example, would still take tea at 4.

            As for the idea that people meet and date the people around them, this is less and less true among the younger generations. Internet dating, etc. is taking off. I know several young couples that met while doing service abroad. No, it’s not the norm, not yet, but things are definitely headed that way. Even if you got your white homeland, those friends of mine still would have married across borders. I just don’t think political borders matter much any more in this globalized world. It’s pre-World War II type thinking. Time to move on.

  • Chip Carver

    If things start to tip in the US the way they are going in Europe, and the folks in charge are unable to or unwilling to use force against the white population, the above article is likely listing some of the “outs” they are going to try to use to in order to placate YT, at least for awhile. While it’s likely the people pulling the strings in the West are going to do some vicious things (as they have done in the past, look at what they did when they created the USSR and the “Eastern Bloc”) if they choose not to or if they start getting their noses bloodied, you can count on them to try and say they were on our side all along, they’re really part of us, lets work together to fix things (using some of the above arguments – although they’ll be “edited” depending on the situation) and even doing an about-face and deciding to use force against the non-white hordes they have pushed into the West over the past several decades. These people work all sides.

  • MekongDelta69

    What he said:
    “I’m a philosophy professor specializing in ethics and political philosophy, and like many of my fellow academics, I’m a political progressive.”

    What he meant:
    “I’m a philosophy professor specializing in ethics and political philosophy, and like many all of my fellow academics, I’m a political progressive far left radical, who wants to destroy America.”

  • Sid Ishus

    “Increasing ethnic diversity in America …”

    Will someone PLEASE tell me why they consider this desirable?

    • Good point. “Ethnic diversity” is always presumed to be a great thing when, in fact, history has shown it to be the cause of so much strife and division. Most people never even bother to stop and question its validity. It has become one of the fundamental assumptions of white, western cultures. We’ve been trained well by our Leftist overlords.

    • RebelliousTreecko

      Because food, and dances, and music, and, uh, food, and dances, and music…

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      Don’t know but here’s another way to frame the question. Liberalism ought to be understood as a faith, a religion. It’s tenets, absurd as they are (as are the tenets of most faiths), ought to be understood as sacred to them. The question then becomes what induced their deep, emotional, unreasoning commitment to their faith?

      • LHathaway

        Yes, but since we will never alter their faith, their belief in the goodness or desirability of equality (so they profess), we must appeal to it. Since everywhere in the world it is Whites who are treated unequally, this should be easy.

        • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

          Excellent point. But whites’ out-sized achievements over time — in science, government, the arts, war, philosophy, etc. — are a glaring affront to non-whites and must be “equalized” by downgrading, pathologizing, diminishing. So your solution — appeal to equality for whites — has limited and situational applicability. It is not cure-all for the incurable, the superiority of Western/white humanity.

          • MikeofAges

            Maybe, in that event, Jesse Jackson had a point. “We don’t want welfare, we want our share,” he once asseverated.

            He wasn’t saying, we invented everything, we could invent everything and create all the necessary institutions to make it work. Just a share. Look at it that way, and it’s a reasonable goal. But corollary is, you don’t run our society. You get your share, and that’s it.

            Any takers?

          • LHathaway

            Certainly there is no cure all you’re offering. Whites are inferior. Perhaps until they realize that, there is not hope.

    • Reynardine

      Likewise, why are these good:

      Accommodating more people versus preserving wildlife habitat and productive farmlands.

      We got plenty of people and issues already.

      Creating more opportunities for foreigners to work in the United States versus pressuring foreign elites to share wealth and opportunities with their fellow citizens in their own countries.

      We got plenty of unemployed citizens. There is plenty of demand for workers elsewhere in the world.

    • antiquesunlight

      Yes, that sentence stopped me, too. The interesting thing about it is that he recognized that diversity destabilizes society. So he sees some kind of inherent value in ethnic diversity that I guess he thinks outweighs the destabilization of society, and I cannot for the life of me imagine what that value might be. It is a real mystery.

      • WilmotRobertson

        “… I cannot for the life of me imagine what that value might be…”

        Probably that they aren’t white.

        • antiquesunlight

          But what is the supposed value of having people who aren’t white? Especially a value that outweighs the harm of destabilizing society.

          • WilmotRobertson

            Thats a really good question. The value could be short term value such as in lower wages and more tax payers with the long term value not really being a concern.

          • antiquesunlight

            But couldn’t we just as easily bring in a bunch of white immigrants and achieve the same effect if that’s what we really wanted? Besides, that can’t possibly be Cafaro’s reason since one of his arguments for reducing immigration is that it will raise wages.

    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      The libs and the semites like that, but then go and live in lilly white gated communities.

    • scottthestrategerist

      Because they’re hardcore egalitarians who have been brainwashed into thinking that race isn’t real, and so it’s a moral imperative to prove it by making everyone and everything as little white as possible. In other words, they’re all antiwhite.

  • libertarian1234

    “Reducing immigration raises wages and protects the environment.”

    It also is one very important step in assuring we have enough water for growing food and watering livestock in order to keep from starving. For example it takes 350,000 gallons of water to grow just one acre of corn. Water levels are at record lows right now. Some of the rivers have also dried up before they reach the Gulf at certain times of the year, and they never used to do that with fewer people. With more people resources will continue to be depleted since there is no plan in place to compensate for the losses.

    But the radical leftist political agenda would never worry about something like that until we were hit with a famine and there wasn’t enough water in the reservoirs for the population to drink and use for cooking.

    And even then they wouldn’t worry too much, because they’d come up with some kind of kooky scheme that makes no sense to anybody but a rabid radical

    Like the one who wrote this article and believes diversity uber alles.

    • RationaliseThis

      Reducing immigration raises the cost of labour but also encourages investment in automation. That means better jobs, higher quality products.

      I’m an enginner in the automation field with 30 years experience. I noticed that the explosion in immigration in western countries 15-20 years ago that the managment deteriorated. They simply either hired more workers to keep a plant going, say running a machine with 2-3 workers rather than 1-2 or treated the workforce with a certain contempt and with arrogance often just becoming whipmasters pushing a low skill workforce. Management dumbed down and lost the buisiness knowledge or ability to implement technology or sophisticated quality control systems. It’s one reason western manufacturing is in the doldrums. Low quality workforce, low quality managment and no way to climb back out. It’s one reason why the Japanese first implemented robotics and achieved exceptional quality despite robotic technology being available in UK, USA, Germany.

  • LexiconD1

    Here in Los Angeles, they are growing pot in the Angeles National Forrest, and taking shots at anyone who comes close to them. Including police, and Forrest Rangers.

    • Kenner

      Oh no…I used to go birdwatching there.

    • BloodofAlbion75

      There is just as much,if not more,of that nonsense going on up in the Central Valley and Northern California as there is here in SoCal.

  • Sid Ishus

    Man that moderator is quick tonight.

  • dd121

    Who mistakenly thinks dems give a damn about people? Seems to me all they care about is getting more dems elected, the more left the better.

  • Reynardine

    Too late now, you tools.

  • John Jackson

    Interesting, couple of his quotes I had to single out here:

    “On the positive side, progressives are compassionate.”

    Ah, and of course, all of us who are not “Progressives” have no compassion.

    “In my own experience, I’ve found that critics avoid the substance of my arguments, dismissing them as a cover for nefarious intentions.”

    You don’t say? Welcome to what all the rest of us deal with 24/7.

    “We need to face limits realistically, consider the trade-offs involved in different policy choices, and ask which ones will best serve the common good over the long term.”

    Buddy, you just don’t get it do you? Most of the people you are talking to don’t care one bit about what is realistic or the long term. All of their views are based on emotion, not logic or reason.

  • JohnEngelman

    Of course.

  • LHathaway

    “I value economic security for workers and their families, and support a much more equal distribution of wealth, strong and well-enforced environmental-protection laws, and an end to racial discrimination in the United States”.

    Ignoring the obvious insanity of the paragraph, it is, in a sense, an admission by the author that he is in favor of racial separatism. It will be the only way to keep them from discriminating against us at any and every opportunity.

  • And also, this is the sort of rhetoric we would be hearing and reading from the environmentalist movement if we had a real environmentalist movement: Immigration control, population pressure, nuclear energy. Instead, the joke that passes for “environmentalism” is little more than the plaything of ideological extremists, modern day “former” Communists, and a political weapon for selfish greedy billionaires (Tom Steyer) and other interests that don’t want to suffer personally the diversity they want to inflict on the rest of us.

    Quick example: There’s a plan to build a light rail line between Bell Curve County, Maryland and Federal Bureaucrat County, Maryland. (Prince Georges and Montgomery, to translate into English.) Guess what just so happens to be in the way that threatens to stop the whole thing? That’s right, the habitat of an endangered shrimp species. It’s how the white and non-black people of Federal Bureaucrat County manifest their “racism,” by covering their bums with a shrimp.

  • Preparation HBomb

    An educated, well-researched and thoughtful article. I agree, substantially. I do NOT have a problem with immigration, provided it’s LEGAL. I also believe we need to start limiting immigration of unskilled workers. We have enough of those right here in the barrios and ghettos and poor white trash areas of the U.S. Instead, focus on allowing educated and skilled individuals to immigrate to our country. We need to stop focusing on the needs of the immigrants and start focusing on what OUR country needs in terms of immigrants. If it makes the fate of the unskilled workers here worse, then MAYBE it might motivate them to stop the drug/alcohol abuse, stop having kids at age 14, stay in school, and get post-high school training/education that is career-oriented. It’s our choices, after all, that make the difference in having a quality life — or not. And those choices exist at the level of each individual AND at the level of our government….

    • Yancy Derringer

      “We need to stop focusing on the needs of the immigrants and start focusing on what OUR country needs in terms of immigrants.”

      There it is. Look at California, buckling under the load of Hispanic illegals, services stretched to the breaking point, broke and in heavy debt – all due to the sheer magnitude of their influx.

      • Preparation HBomb

        Exactly. That’s one of the biggest reason I left SoCA.

    • Martel

      So if congress legalises importing 50 million Africans you are fine with it?

      • Preparation HBomb

        I think I said we need to focus on what OUR country needs — and we don’t need 50 million immigrants of any stripe.

        • Martel

          I think 50 million Europeans immigrating to the USA would be quite beneficial.

          • Anglokraut

            Depends on from where. No one with eyes would call Roma “Europeans” yet they are legally exactly that. Imagine 50 million gypsies invading the U.S..

    • scottthestrategerist

      You don’t mind immigration so long as it’s legal??? Are you an idiot? Like I always say, this has nothing to do with where you were born or what papers you have/don’t have. It’s about RACE. You’re an ALIEN because you’re a member of another RACE. You’re more than welcome to join gangs, be a drop out, and get pregnant while still a teen… so long as you do it in your own country, not in a white one, and don’t expect any foreign aid or welfare!

      • Preparation HBomb

        You, Scott, are exactly why I don’t visit this site very often. You simply use this page to hate indiscriminately and indulge in name-calling, and that does not interest me.

  • MG Huffman

    The mestizo invasion of America is endorsed by politicians on both sides of the aisle who are trying to curry favor with the mass media. It is also opposed by working class and middle class whites on both sides of the aisle. Like America’s foreign policy towards Israel, it is an issue where you see the rift not between democrats and republicans, but between the politicians and the people.

    • Weisheit77

      Precisely…the left gets feelgood diversity and a chance to get whitey.

      The right does it for cheap labor as Mr. Engelman is so fond of reminding us.

      One would think that this would eventually open the door for a big time 3rd party.

  • Weisheit77

    Wow… Someone in academia has the intestinal fortitude to think the obvious out then publish it. There are so many contradictions on the left. It is like they haven’t even taken the time to organize their ideas. I have constantly harped on the lunacy of flooding the USA with more immigration while wanting to improve the environment. I think the comical way to express it we just had an accident at the intersection of Environmental Avenue and Mass Immigration BLVD.

    I’m sure I’m preaching to the crowd as many of you here are aware of how the Sierra(?) Club was paid off with a huge chunk of change to never mention mass immigration by a wealthy donor. I think that happened in the 90’s.

    But let’s take the equation one step further. Further Environmental restrictions x rapidly expanding population / rising energy costs because of green energy laws = more expensive and smaller housing for everyone. That taken with the slow death of the suburbs and kiss white picket fence days goodbye forever.

    They say the economist sees the unseen. Well one would have to be a truly gifted economist to fully calculate all the American largesse in the last 100 years. We could all be living like kings in a nation of 100,000,000 of mostly European people. Instead, we live like paupers cheek by jowl with diversity or in suburbs tucked away from the big, bad world.

    I was a kid in the South in the 80’s and even I can see a major difference in SC then and now. Everywhere that used to be open or wooded now has either a) rich yankees’ and southerners’ McMansion’s and megamansions with a golf course and fishing pond b) a trailer park for all the various colors, hues, and sizes of trash that mankind generates c) Mexico. It is really sad. I live now on the East Coast and have been here long enough to see most of the forests cut down so people fleeing NJ’s, Philadelphia’s, and NYC’s suburbs could restart the process. There used to be pristine Amish country 15 minutes from here. Now you’d better go the hour and 1/2 to the other side of Lancaster to see anything pristine. It is sad. I can only imagine what people like Fred Reed think when they visit their old stomping grounds.

    • Samuel_Morton

      The obvious hypocrisy of the Sierra Club also strikes a nerve with me, too. Anyone with half a brain knows that more people equals more environmental damage and less open space. And it doesn’t take much to notice that people who value nature most are from the northern latitudes.

      • RationaliseThis

        A tribal fellow by the name of “David Gelbaum” donated $100 million to Sierra and stipulated that they forever reject any form of immigration restrictions. They sold out. Up till then they had. In selling out they have in fact caused very heavy environmental damage than they could have possibly averted with the money. Gelbaums achievement relates more in helping defeat a powerfulll argument against immigration.

  • Luca

    I believe littering must be an Olympic event in Mexican culture and is probably taught in K-12. Mexicans have brought littering to a new height whereby we actually need a new word for it. They think nothing of tossing old refrigerators on the side of the road.

    • model1911

      Or a mattress, ladder, and the like in the middle of an interstate highway.

      • Texan1st

        Or dirty diapers all over parking lots and parks. Even when there is a trash can 10 feet away.

        • BloodofAlbion75

          I’ve also seen dirty diapers and human waste left on and around bus benches.

    • Caucasoid88

      I live near Santa Monica in Los Angeles. Once you move inland away from the beach, it gets dirtier and dirtier. You see old mattresses and chairs and remnants of yard sales on the sidewalk (Mexicans love yard sales). You see a 16-year-old girl with a three-year-old kid, and you see short, fat, middle-aged mothers rolling a stroller with a new baby inside and seven others cracked up on sugar and caffeine in tow.

      The only Mexican-run businesses are taquerias—I guess that counts as “diversity.” And they play ear-piercing clown music at ungodly hours because it was the sixth quinceanera in the family this month.

      Mexican neighborhoods are a standard deviation in quality below the norm. It’s just the truth.

      • Luca

        I hear you. I worked in downtown LA for 30 years and watched it morph into a third world city.

        • Spaniard in LA

          Not no more, as soon as you cross the Boyle Heights bridges you see nothing but Whites (hipsters). Downtown looks much better now.

          • Luca

            Downtown had virtually very few residents until about 10 yrs ago when politicians got tired of seeing crumbling factories, warehouses, stores and hotels. LA was becoming Detroit. They lured investors into turning these buildings into artsy-fartsy lofts and high denisty housing to attract Whites and tax money. It has been mildly successful but will only last as long as they can keep the crime at bay. It is an artificial environment.

        • scottthestrategerist

          What was it like when you started?

          • Luca

            It was pre-invasion mode. Downtown LA was strictly for employment. Very few residents and nightlife. After years of liberal policies it became a magnet for bums and illegals. Homelessness and druggies soared, Skid Row developed into an industry, they had to put public toilets on the streets (this was not the heart of the city but the fringes).

    • BloodofAlbion75


      Their propensity for defacing property with obscene graffiti is another pastime the Mexicans enjoy participating in.

      “They think nothing of tossing old refrigerators on the side of the road.”

      They likewise think nothing about discarding broken-down toilets in the same reprehensible way;I can see one outside of my kitchen window even as I type this.

      And let’s not forget about the equally damaged jalopies they frequently allow to deteriorate on their unkempt property or decide to abandon along a litter-strewn alley somewhere,creating a hazard for children living in the neighborhood.

    • Dragblacker

      I wonder: culturally speaking, how are creole Mexicans, or creoles as a whole in Latin America, compared to mestizos or Mesoamericans?

  • antiquesunlight

    The diversity nonsense made my skin crawl but most of the article was plain good sense.

  • Evette Coutier

    Note that progressives are more interested in the good people of Mexico finding better lives here that the lives of Americans. Swine.

  • Alexandra1973

    What we could do, though, is have all the Mexicans come here…then we move to Mexico and make it into a nice country.

    (The bad part is…they’ll want to move back!)

    • Problem? If you have anything that is worth having, you have something that is worth protecting. Too many people don’t get that.

  • There is no progressive case for reducing immigration. Why? Because “progressivism” was never about helping the poor or the working class. It was about Cultural Marxism. Its ultimate goal was to destroy the White, Christian, European descended culture here and abroad.

  • kenfrombayside

    Re Immigration. If say or do nothing about this criminal third world invasion, you are part of the problem. Keep in contact with your elected reps; consistently go to the polls and vote against the true enemy of the white race: the Democratic Party; do yourgardening, don’t eat out and do your own laundry; go to numbersusa and join other organization that advocate a reduction in immigration. Make no mistake, this third world assault is a form of genocide against America’s white.

    • BloodofAlbion75

      And watch your own kids!

  • WR_the_realist

    We have over 300 million people in the United States and apparently two people in the entire country are progressives with the common sense that immigration is bad for the environment and bad for worker’s wages — Phiip Cafaro and John Engelman.

    • JohnEngelman

      Thank you.

      Nevertheless, you can add Paul Krugman to your list. He wrote this, “open immigration can’t coexist with a strong social safety net; if you’re going to assure health care and a decent income to everyone, you can’t make that offer global.”

  • Albert

    Concerning the R word, the following is very true: ” In my own experience, I’ve found that critics avoid the substance of my
    arguments, dismissing them as a cover for nefarious intentions.” Liberals hate statistics, facts, and sound arguments. By branding an opponent with the R word, the opponent is considered a biased hate monger with an agenda and his argument is discarded without regard for its content and merit. When all else fails, liberals love to play the race card.

    • JohnEngelman

      Conservatives also “hate statistics, facts, and sound arguments” against what they want to believe in.

      • Uprising

        By conservatives you mean what? Jewish-owned neo-cons?

        • JohnEngelman

          Anyone with strong feelings dislikes whatever discredits those feelings.

          • Uprising

            Like liberals who go nuts when their egalitarian ideology is discredited.

          • JohnEngelman

            Like conservatives who dislike it when I draw attention to the contradiction between desiring “a strong military” and “less government, lower taxes.”

        • WR_the_realist

          There are lots of ways in which conservatives ignore statistics, facts, and sound arguments. Christian fundamentalists who reject the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth, and for evolution through natural selection, are one example. Muslims who also reject evolution through natural selection are another. Conservatives who like the idea of cheap gas for their SUVs reject the evidence for global warming. We all know there are facts that the left refuses to acknowledge but there are also facts the right refuses to acknowledge.

      • WR_the_realist

        I find that people of all stripes hate truth that goes against their preconceptions. I like my race, but my primary loyalty has always been to the truth. I don’t get freaked out when statistic show that some other race or ethnic group is better than my own on some parameter.

        • JohnEngelman

          Most people allow their likes and dislikes to influence their judgement of what is true and false. I do too, but I try not to.

  • JohnEngelman

    There is little I can add to this excellent essay. Liberals and conservatives have difficulty making connections. They have a hard time recognizing that one of their goals can conflict with another goal.

    • Uprising

      Yes, and the libertarian ideology is the biggest supporter of open-borders.

      • JohnEngelman

        A libertarian is a Republican who likes illegal drugs and pornography, and who does not like to go to church.

        • Uprising

          Yes you are right. 99% of Libertarians are degenerates. Libertarianism was invented by atheist Jews to subvert the goyim and promote extreme nation-destroying individualism.

          • JohnEngelman

            Libertarianism is a euphemism for Social Darwinism. The first Social Darwinists were Gentiles.

          • Easy with the tinfoil hat, yours is on too tight.

            Libertarianism is not much more than a 19th century ideology for 19th century problems. What it has been in modern times is bar none the opiate of the right wing. Libertarianism doesn’t win much of anything politically, it’s just the 200 pound millstone around the right wing’s neck that keeps it from being able to win.

        • The Dude

          “A libertarian is a Republican who likes illegal drugs and pornography, and who does not like to go to church.”

          What do you know! I guess I’m a libertarian after all!

          Care to share a joint, uncle John? It’ll makes reading the Stormfront Jewish conspiracy nuts way more fun and laughter-inducing than it already is.

        • WR_the_realist

          Well, in all fairness a libertarian is a Republican who likes the Bill of Rights and hates war. At least that is true of Ron Paul. And he’s also a Christian who goes to a Baptist church, and doesn’t use drugs, and is a father and grandfather who has led a decent life consistent with his faith. Ron Paul would legalize recreational drugs but he wouldn’t use them himself, or recommend them. The same way I am about alcohol.

      • The mainstream liberals are still bigger supporters, but the libertarians are just a half step behind.

        Just as this Cafaro will soon be excommunicated from liberaldom, any libertarian who supports immigration control will also be exiled.

    • dmxinc

      John if that’s all you can saying about this disjointed article, it reveals a major blind spot in your thinking.

      Read many of the comments by your fellow readers to have your eyes opened.

      Metaphorically, this writer wants the grass to be green and purple at the same time. Music to be loud and soft at the same time.
      There to be crowds without being crowded.

      • JohnEngelman

        What don’t I see? What don’t I know?

        I am in favor of more restrictions on immigration, but I do not feel hostile to immigrants. My hostility is reserved for American employers – most of whose ancestors came to this country in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – who want fewer restrictions on immigration so that they can lower wages.

  • Transpower

    I’m not opposed to legal immigration of self-supporting individuals. I am opposed to illegal immigration. Importing goods reduces the prices of domestic goods; similarly, importing illegals reduces the prices and employment of existing citizens. We don’t have full employment now, so it makes no sense to import more workers now. I have friends in the STEM industries (science, technology, engineering, and math) who are out of work; so I cannot even recommend more H1B visas at this time–only after we get to full employment. Besides, it takes time to acculturate new arrivals. Also: Islam is completely incompatible with the principles of a strictly-limited Constitutional Republic, so I’m completely opposed to importing any Muslims.

  • Red

    Legal immigration needs to be strictly limited and all illegal immigration needs to stop. This is a flood with no end in sight.

    I think I have told this story before, but ten years ago after I married my German wife I sponsored her for permanent residency here in the US. She was already here on a work visa for a European company when I met her. During this process I was required to interview with immigration officials to ensure our marriage was legitimate and that I can financially support her.

    The immigration office, conveniently located on MLK Street in downtown Atlanta, was like a scene out of Raspail’s Camp of the Saints. With the exception of a few INS officials and what appeared to be an attorney for an East Asian family, we were the only White people out of approximately 150 people in the room. It was all black and browns. I was in complete disbelief.

    Most of these people were running around in clothes they probably haven’t washed in days with several children running around bare-footed. Lots of people in tunics and various muslim garb, and over weight Amerinds in tank tops. The few Orientals in the room were dressed well and at least showed some sense of pride and respect, but the rest looked like they came out of a cave or hut (the place smelled like a cave too).

    To top things off I was interviewed by an Indian (Asian) whose accent was so bad I could barely understand him.

    It was truly and eye-opening experience. This country is gone unless something corrects this, and corrects it soon. It’s an all out invastion of third-worlders.

    • RationaliseThis


    • dmxinc

      Same experience I had.

      We have foreigners deciding what foreigners to let into our country.

      If the average American could see what is happening and didn’t rise up to stop it, we lose the right to our own country.

      Unfortunately, most Americans don’t have a clue what is happening.

  • I’m not sure what to make of the idea of attempting to latch on to “progressivism” as an argument for restricting immigration.

    I am sure nationalists could do much more with these kinds of concerns, but I suppose I would fear that by promoting such “side issues”, the fundamental issues become even more lost.

    I believe it has been proven before that importing people from developing/third worlds to the first world has disastrous environmental effects.

    In a nutshell, I suppose 20,000 Somalis clapping and singing in Africa is less detrimental than those same 20,000 Somalis watching plasma screen TVs, jabbering on mobile phones, driving around in cars, being put into housing built on the greenbelt, and so on.

    We also know it lowers wages. It is ironic that the old socialists and trade unions here were once anti-immigration for those very reasons, but they changed their tune with the advent of pushing multiculturalism. I guess it may go around in another cycle yet.

    The other problem is that we are going out there trying to use logic and facts. We tend to carry around a whole pile of evidence under our arms proving the case as to why we are right to be concerned – but people just to not seem to make their decisions on facts or logic.

    If facts, evidence, logic was all that was required, we would now collectively be sitting in happy surroundings and be confident of a bright future. By all means try it, and it is great to be able to back up all of our arguments from as many vantage points as possible – yet there seems to be something seriously wrong with such an approach as it has not been working all that well so far.

  • PouponMarx

    Just another metrosexual, sheltered life, “wet”, wimpy, refugee from the Province of Reality.

  • Korean guy

    There are reports that the ISIS ended up murdering the two Japanese hostages because Japan’s PM refused to give them the ransom of $200 million dollars they were demanding.


    • IstvanIN

      More families destroyed. It is time all governments banned travel to ISIS controlled areas.
      My God rest their souls.

      • Funruffian

        My only request is if ISIS can focus their attacks on California Bay Area liberals. Just then they can redeem themselves.

      • RationaliseThis

        If we took our gloves of ISIS and its ultimate cause Islam would be finished in less than a year. It will have to happen.

    • Magician

      No respect for human lives
      No respect for women
      No interest in peace

      And to think many Western nations are importing them by several thousands every year…….

  • Raymond Kidwell

    I don’t see immigration as a big deal considering the empty space still available in the U.S. The problem is they seem of lower quality than current citizens, will significantly change the appearance, culture and very nature of the nation, seem to be a net drain on the economy etc.

    • WR_the_realist

      The empty space is already being used by the plants and animals that live there, and the hikers and hunters who appreciate the plants and animals that live there.

      I am pro-environment, and I see immigration as the most critical issue in the country.

      I have no desire to see more wilderness destroyed for the benefit of “diversity”.

      • IstvanIN

        I have seen up close what happens when politicians want every square inch of land paved over. NJ, especially South Jersey, was covered with farms and woodlands over large portions of the state. In the 1960s NJ was a major hog producer and had both a large dairy and egg industry. Lots of family truck farms. Now most of the state is paved. Traffic is unbearable. Flooding is more common. Water tables are dropping. But there are quite a few unpaved acres that we could put a few more Patels and Martinezes on.

      • BloodofAlbion75

        “I have no desire to see more wilderness destroyed for the benefit of ‘diversity’.”

        Or anymore prime agricultural land paved over so that more subdivisions can be built in it’s place.

    • Chasmania

      I actually had to read what you wrote a few times just so I knew I wasn’t “reading” into it.

      Immigration isn’t a “big deal” because we have lots of space….Really ? In your mind the importance of immigration is offset by how much acreage a nation has ? Then you go on to say that these same immigrants lack of quality SEEMS to be a drain on the nation ? I can put your mind to rest. They are POSITIVELY a drain on the economy and well being of the nation.

    • Space isn’t the only consideration. Fresh water supply, food production limits, quality of life.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        We could sustain a population twice the size, with a much better quality of life if the people had I.Q.s high enough and are civilized. Instead all I see around me are collapsing bridges, dysfunctional government, dysfunctional businesses, crime, poverty etc. as a result of the low quality of our population. The issue is population, but rather the quality of that population. The U.S. is mostly empty space if you have ever driven through it.

        • WR_the_realist

          Please move to China. You’ll be in a nation about the size of the United States with over a billion people, and IQs about the same as ours, or maybe a bit better. In a few years you’ll wish you were in the United States.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            Belgium population per square mile 889, Japan 836, Israel 809, U.K. 650, Switzerland is more densely populated than China due to the fact that China does have rural areas. North Dakoata has 4 people per square mile compared to 650 for England. U.S. average is about 34 per sq mile. I have drove through the country and you can drive all day through most states and see nothing but trees with only an occasional house or farm.

          • WR_the_realist

            You hate wilderness. I don’t. We have irreconcilable differences.

          • IstvanIN

            I have drove through the country and you can drive all day through most states and see nothing but trees with only an occasional house or farm.
            And that’s a good thing.

          • Just because a few countries can have high population densities doesn’t mean every country should or could or that the whole world could or should. North Dakota only having four people per square mile is a feature, not a bug. Because, we need wheat, and now increasingly oil.

            North Dakota only having four people per square mile precisely white Belgium, Japan, Israel, the UK can be so densely populated.

        • Ellis Kurtz

          “The U.S. is mostly empty space if you have ever driven through it.”
          And long may it remain that way. Do you want suburbia stretching from New York to Los Angeles?
          A country doesn’t need a huge population to accomplish great things. In the 19th century, Great Britain established the basis of the modern industrial state and acquired a vast empire; its population at the time was around 40 million. The US was victorious in WWII fighting on two fronts against determined adversaries. At that time the population was around 140 million.

        • dmxinc

          Hope you enjoy a commute that goes from 1 hour to 3.

          Hope you enjoy not being able to find a parking spot in any major city.

          Hope you enjoy not being able to find a comfortable place on the beach for you and your family.

          Hope you enjoy waiting over an hour in lift lines for only one run down a ski slope.

          This future is what your view point leaves the next generation of Americans.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            1. There shouldn’t be long commutes in most cases. These can be easily solved with public transportation and also better city planning. Our people are too stupid for this currently.
            2. Same with parking
            3. Not sure about that one.

            For the most part you have higher density areas with shorter commutes, lower pollution, shorter lines etc. just due to better leadership and higher quality populace. Currently though every nation seems to have a brain drain. Scarce resources is not the problem. We have people too inept to use those resources properly, that’s the problem. It’s the same with cities. Man I would love to live in a city if it was full of people like me. If the streets were clean, crime wasn’t common, courtesy existed. Instead it’s all full of chimps, crime, crumbling buildings, pollution, filth etc. City is not inherently a bad thing. It has just become a bad thing due to the low quality of people in it. A city doesn’t need to be a crime filled cess pool. A populated nation doesn’t need to be that way either. People should be working on colonizing mars or what to do if the sun burns out. Instead they can’t live next to each other without robbing or raping their neighbor.

          • dmxinc

            You are trying to solve a problem that shouldn’t exist and wouldn’t exist if we keep out the Third World masses.

          • throttler

            I used to use public transportation a lot, and there is nothing to like about it.

          • Ella

            You can also add a 3 week wait to see a regular physician. You can take a lone walk in the woods but frequently see people passing by during you hike. It take 30+ mins. at the post office to weigh your package. You miss 2 subway trains due to no space.

        • MBlanc46

          Perhaps we could, but why should we?

    • Vito Powers

      Space isn’t the only issue. What about the social and financial cost of both legal and illegal immigration on state and municipal budgets – costs like housing, Medicaid , education to name a few.

      I don’t believe that claptrap of immigrants paying more in taxes than they receive in social service. Yes, immigrants pay that when they buy a case of Corona, but what about paying Income Taxes? Many immigrants work in the “informal” economy where they get paid in cash. What about International Remittances where immigrants send money to their homeland? Perhaps there should be a tax on that money flowing out if this country. In 2005, jackass Bush was gushing about $30 BILLION being sent to Mexico by his beloved immigrants. It’s a back door version of foreign aid.

      Also, state and local governments seem so quick and eager to reduce services and pensions for native-born citizens, but rarely mention the drain of immigration on financial resources.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        I agree these immigrants are a net burden. But I’m saying hypothetically if we had a population of law abiding and high I.Q./high altruism individuals there would be enough space for significant population expansion. The problem now is that most people produce too much garbage, cause crime, bridges are collapsing because they aren’t competent enough to maintain them, farming and other industry is inefficient (wasteful), super bugs are created due to abuse of anti-biotics etc. Some say people are the problem. People are not the problem. DEFECTIVE people are the problem.

    • MBlanc46

      It doesn’t seem to be the case that the Mexicans and South Asians and Chinese and Middle Easterners are filling up the “empty space”. It appears to me, here in the Chicago suburbs, that they’re invading and colonizing towns and villages that were developed by Euro-Americans.

      • Euro-Americans. I like that. Mind if I use it?

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    Immigration to the US and to the other ‘White’ countries should be stopped. Legal and an most importantly illegal. Legal immigration from only white countries should be allowed and maybe we can let in dark skinned caucasians that are 100% going to assimilate into that white society. We need to kick the Negros and other non whites out and most importantly the muslims. They are a agressive cancer to white society, and the next non agressive cancer are the semites that do it stealthily.

  • Anna Tree

    I think liberal leftism didn’t start with a totalitarian philosophy, at least to the public. It took them a couple of decades to become intolerant of any dissenting opinion to their belief system. So yes, I agree with John R, “baby steps” with the basic acceptation that races are different is a good bet (I would add ejecting all illegals, the economic/social etc change that this will trigger will make stopping immigration more relevant.)

    I though don’t wish totalitarianism on our movement, it can only be enforced by violence and seems to always kill itself, unless it has a religious disguise like islam.

    • Death Penalty

      Jared Taylor’s mild moderate “race realist” approach has utterly failed over the past two decades. Even he admitted this during his AmRen speech a couple years ago, saying that he’s attempt at “educating” people about race had failed and that Americans should give up hope about reclaiming their country and start looking towards establishing white enclaves.

  • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

    I agree with some points in this article about reducing immigration and also about how increased population harms the environment, but here is what I disagree with this article that is in most ways a liberal article.

    ‘I’m a philosophy professor specializing in ethics and political philosophy, and like many of my fellow academics, I’m a political progressive. I value economic security for workers and their families, and support a much more equal distribution of wealth, strong and well-enforced environmental-protection laws, and an end to racial discrimination in the United States. I want to maximize the political power of common citizens and limit the influence of large corporations. My political heroes include the three Roosevelts (Teddy, Franklin, and Eleanor), Rachel Carson, and Martin Luther King Jr.
    MLK and Rachel Carson, are you kidding me, are his heroes??????

    ‘On the positive side, progressives are compassionate. We care about the well-being of would-be immigrants, many of whom are poor and downtrodden. We do not want to tell good people like Javier Morales that they cannot come to America and make better lives for themselves and their families.

    We also value diversity. We appreciate the many contributions that immigrants have made and continue to make to American life, and we value the idea of the United States as an open and evolving society.’

    Valuing DIE-versity, good people like Javier Morales, Immigrants contributing to society????

    ‘We need an honest and truly comprehensive debate about immigration and population matters–one that considers Javier and Tom and their grandchildren’

    I am all for looking out for the interests of Tom and his grandkids, hopefully they will be pure white, but about Javier and his descendants, I am not crazy about them being in the US.

    Why does this website have neocon or liberal articles like this one, I do not understand.

    • dmxinc

      This writer has written himself into a position that is impossible to have.

      He wants everything – no increase in population, yet no effective controls on immigration.

      He want to “maximize the political power of common citizens,” but says he is for redistributing their wealth through the barrel of a gun – the government.

      Guys like this don’t realize the hard choices that must be made if a society is going to survive in a viable and recognizable form. He would rather feel righteous than be right.

      • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

        He is trying to play both sides of the coin. He cannot have it both ways.

  • Caucasoid88

    On the positive side, progressives are compassionate.


    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      Well said.

  • WR_the_realist

    I wish Krugman had the same sense on economics. He hasn’t seen an economic problem that can be solved by more massive money printing.

    • JohnEngelman

      He has argued plausibly that cutting domestic spending during a time of low economic growth and high unemployment is bad economics.

      • WR_the_realist

        There is never any time, boom or bust, when Democrats want to cut government spending.

        • JohnEngelman

          Nor is there any time, boom or bust, when Republicans want to raise taxes. Nevertheless, they complain about the deficit when there is a Democrat president.

          • WR_the_realist

            Okay, fair enough. I think there should be a broad based, mandatory tax increase any time congress gets us into another war. Then we’ll see how popular war really is.

            Both parties suck.

  • BloodofAlbion75

    I’m inclined to believe that the year 2100 will more likely resemble a cross between “The Postman” and the “Planet of the Apes”.

  • I don’t want “equality”. I am 48, have taken such good care of my health that I still wear the same size 32-32 trousers I wore in high school. I have an IQ that was tested in federal prison at 152; they were curious. Why on earth would I want “equality” with a pseudo-simian? Yes, I’m a convicted felon, but does that suddenly make me equal to rape-ape Lemaricus Davidson?

    One of my friends can read hexidecimal code like it was plain English with a PhD in software engineering and who is now working on an MD. He wants to make cyborgs, and if I ever want a USB plug socketed in the back of my skull, Daniel will be my first choice.

    How dare they want equality?

  • camperdude

    Philip… you may be devoted to the Progressive cause… but, rest assured, the Progressive cause will spit you out just as it did me and a lot of other people who used to believe in its lofty ideals. There is simply no room in progressivism for ANY dissent from Orthodox Party Line.

    There is only one rule in Progressive politics, and I defy anyone to put it to the test.

    The rule is simple… RACISM TRUMPS EVERYTHING.

    The “fight against racism” is every bit as important to Progressives (or Leftists if you prefer), as Jesus Christ is to Christians. It is their raison d’etre, their Alpha and Omega, their Religion. All actions – even all thought – are beholden to this one, three-word principle.

    Don’t believe me? Look at the Sierra Club – a formerly relevant organization who sold their soul and now cannot comment on issues of immigration. Even worse, they have the unmitigated gall to drag their own founders and figureheads through the mud, claiming John Muir was a “an agent of white privilege” and other such nonsense.

    In this sense, if you are looking at Progressives as a bunch of white Liberals looking to topple the foundations of what they see as “white privilege,” then Barack Obama is their redemption personified. He is – quite literally – their Jesus Christ.

    All questions of public vs private sector, social justice, environmentalism, global warming, etc. are all filtered through one lens…


    It is more important than the environment, more important than the Earth, more important even than LIFE ITSELF. You are dealing with people who would rather see mankind ELIMINATED from the face of the Earth, then have mankind exist with the scourge of racism.

    And you will not be spared, Philip. Thank your lucky stars you are saying these heresies now before their power is absolute! In a real Progressive police state, you’ll be the first to go…

    Make no mistake… we are in a RELIGIOUS war…

    • dmxinc

      You nailed it.

      One problem is how few people have the capacity or the desire to think things through like you have.

      As was said at an AMREN conference, “It is good to be among the living.”

      Unfortunately, those whose eyes the scales have fallen off are few and far between.

    • MBlanc46

      Okay as far as it goes, but you’re forgetting sex (which they construe as gender, a quite different concept). It’s always interesting to watch them in cases where the interests of women and those of minorities conflict. Depending on who’s writing, sex trumps race or race trumps sex.

      • camperdude

        Wrong. Remember MBlanc46… RACISM TRUMPS EVERYTHING. And I hold Clarence Thomas up as proof. Racism ALWAYS triumphs. Again, I defy you to name an instance where this is not the case.

        It is of course more obvious in environmentalism… behold the hell hole that is Organ Pipe Nat. Mon. in Arizona – an area that is CLOSED to the American people. Why? Because it is a major thoroughfare on the great illegal alien highway, and the fragile environment of this beautiful area means nothing to those who put the “rights” of illegal aliens above all else – including life itself.

        • MBlanc46

          Sorry, I have to say, no it doesn’t. It depends on who is speaking and what the subject is. For example, when white feminists write on what they see as women’s issues, “women of color” get look in because they’re women, not because they’re of color. If it’s a black nationalist writing, women of color matter because they’re of color, not because they’re women. I see this fairly frequently in my work in scholarly publishing.

  • dmxinc

    I can point out the benefits.

    Reducing White power.

    Reducing White percentage of the population.

    Reducing White wealth (as they pay for all of this mess).

    Reducing Christian influence in the country.

    Increasing White anxiety as they see their country disappearing.

    All of these are the benefits of mass immigration to a a liberal.

  • scottthestrategerist

    I have a close friend who is black, and not just black, but a black nationalist and Afro-centrist. (We have agreed not to discuss these issues.) He’s also a political conservative when he isn’t wasting his time on Afrocentrists nonsense on ancient Egypt or Israel, or singing the virtues of Trayvon Monster.

    Anyway, I am fully upfront with him that I’m against miscegenation for whites and he fully understands. I tell him that we whites are rapidly going extinct, and the only way to stop is is for whites to mate with, but only with, other whites. There are MANY nonwhites are nice and smart, but what every single one of them in the entire world has in common is that, whether they’re nice or mean, smart or stupid, violent or civilised, NOT ONE OF THEM is physically capable of creating white offspring. When a white mates with a nonwhite, that white genetic line goes extinct, immediately and irreparably.

  • scottthestrategerist

    Making common cause with Leftist environmentalists may very well be possible. They’re already anti-human, and we’re only trying to save 750 million people. Since I’m pretty sure they don’t want there to be no humans in the world, why not work together? 🙂

  • capt_quelch

    Via email I have asked Prof. Cafaro the following in regard to his article:
    “We also value diversity. We appreciate the many contributions that immigrants have made and continue to make to American life, and we value the idea of the United States as an open and evolving society.” –

    Please explain the value of diversity when it comes to race and ethnicity. Especially the “contributions” immigrants – specifically those immigrants from 3rd world non-white, non-Asian nations, have made. I have been studying this topic for over 20 years and ALL the data points to is suspicion, mistrust, higher crime rates, lower scholastic performance, lower quality of life and lower property values for ALL areas that “boast” diversity. In over 20 years we have found no redeeming contributions from non-white, non-Asian immigrants to American society. Our prisons are filled with them because they have a higher tendency toward violent crime, we are headed toward bankruptcy due to the cost of providing them health care, education, incarceration and their propensity for being on government entitlement programs. Not to mention the fact that our nation’s historical demographics of an approximately 90% white majority and just under 10% black minority are being changed forever. This will destroy our legacy, our history, our traditions etc. I would like Professor Cafaro to respond specifically to these points. Thank you.
    If the professor responds I should be happy to repost here at AmRen.

    • MartelsGhost

      I enjoyed reading your post and agree with everything you said.

      I approach you with a theory on how to combat the progressives not with facts, which they clearly do not listen to or acknowledge, but by turning their own weapons of PC mindset against them.

      Please, if you have the time or the inclination, review my thoughts and critique.

      I have been telling progressives that encouraging immigration is racist because it is tantamount to agreeing that Western civilizations are indeed the best in the world. How dare anyone assume that some third world country is “worse” or that a third world government can’t do just as good a job as we can at taking care of their people. Letting, nay encouraging people to uproot their families and leave their traditional homes is encouraging them to give up on themselves and look to the West, specifically Whites, for their salvation.

      I also view the EBT cards through much the same lens. It is more racist to encourage people to be happy about getting EBT handouts. How dare they encourage blacks and minorities to be happy with scraps and toaster leavings. The system is designed to encourage blacks to do no better than holding out their paws hands for freebies. How dare they think so little of people.

      Keep in mind I use these arguments with a great deal of snark and cynicism but since the facts and figures are getting us nowhere then maybe a different tack should be taken.

      Thank you for any input.

  • SeaMonkey Browser

    I am not sure if anyone else is aware but, Miss Columbia just became the Miss Universe.

    It does look like Latin American produces the winners of beauty pageants most in this world.

    • MartelsGhost

      Colombia. Not Columbia.

    • Sick of it

      If I’m not mistaken, every single member of my family looks better than her, including distant cousins. The universe is apparently lacking in standards.

      • Guest

      • SeaMonkey Browser

        It looks like the world is heading towards “The standard of beauty is brunette girls with olive skin”

        Miss France 2015 ( yaay not a black woman )

  • brianreilly

    The immigration debate, nay the very idea of a sovereign United States of America as organized and constituted is OVER. We all need to deal with what is, not what we wish were. It will be entertaining (over the next 20 years or so) to see the white (and black) Progs turn on the very Hispanic immigrant (all from Hispania, don’t you know) “community”.

    Try to avoid the debris field. I recommend someplace with brutal winters.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    Firstly I was stating a hypothetical. If there were socially responsibe, altruistic geniuses immigrating it wouldn’t be a problem. That’s not that case though, so I don’t support immigration. But it’s not really immigration that I’m against, but just the type of people that immigrate.

    I find most whites around me to be too stupid to do a simple job and to commit crimes as well. Perhaps a step up from the other races, but still we are a sinking ship in terms of genetic and cultural quality. All the retards seem to have 10 kids a piece and 60 grandkids. I’m not making that up, I have met many people with around 60 grandkids. Normal and above average people aren’t even replacing themselves. It’s turning into the movie idiocracy.

    I also live in poverty due to a lot of upper level incompetent. If I report a crime it almost never is dealt with properly. Whether the crime is murder, rape or simple vandalism. No matter how severe the crime, police don’t seem to care. Even if I deal with federal agencies it’s the same thing. If I deal with banks or management level people they seem similarly dumb most of the time. I encounter unprofessional conduct in colleges and so forth. Even among the wealthy and educated there seems to be an abundance of low quality people.

    For a lot of the people here who are against mixing with Asians and such, most of the time when I meet a normal well adjusted person of average intelligence who can do a simple job correctly- its usually an east asian or Jew. Not that these people are perfect, but on average seem to produce more normal and functioning people.

    White people by contrast is a tale of extremes. Most geniuses are white. The highest achievers tend to be white, but at the same time most average white people are pretty defective. There are also a lot of normal well adjusted whites, but they are shrinking due to dysgenics.

    I’m desperately trying to create a small community around me that is competent. Collapsing bridges, cities that look like war zones, redneck cops too stupid to read a statute and understand it, federal agents and politicians who could care less about the nation they live in (they sh**t in the same bowl they eat out of in other words), few of them smart enough to even be ashamed of it.

    There is nothing wrong with public transportation. There is something wrong with their affirmitive action hiring practices, their incompetent management, and the typical retarded criminal that hasn’t taken a bath in three weeks that rides the bus. Nothing wrong with immigration, just something wrong with the moronic criminals that seem to be immigrating. All the problems can be boiled down to a prima facta: human quality needs to be improved. Eugenics should exist. Cultural values need to be reformed.