In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority.

Thus it’s no surprise that Jewish organizations favor what VDARE labels the “Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Bill” now being considered in the Senate. (On the other hand, Israel’s immigration policy is a model for favoring ethnic/national interests.) This bill has all the components desired by Jewish organizations in 1951 and continuing to the present. As always, support for displacement-level immigration and lack of concern for traditional American culture spans the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right.

A good example from the Jewish left is the New York Times editorial page, inspired by publisher Arthur Sulzberger. During the debate over the 2007 version, the Times rejected any attempt to recruit skilled immigrants by a point system favoring people with skills instead of chain migration of families of the poor and uneducated:

At the editorial page, the plan was repugnant because it failed to serve the highest value: inclusiveness for the world’s poor and unskilled. The Times demanded that the current system of legal immigration not be reformed, that it continue to offer green cards not just to individual immigrants and their immediate families, but also to their extended families in ever-lengthening links of in-laws and cousins known as “chain migration.” A Times editorial expressed disgust with the legislative proposal. It denounced “the repellent truth … that countless families will be split apart while we cherry pick the immigrants we consider brighter and better than the poor, tempest-tost ones we used to welcome without question. (Jerry Kammer, “Sulzberger’s voice: How Arthur Sulzberger radicalized the New York Times editorial page on immigration“)



The Times also supported a guest worker program in 2007, but only if “the annual influx of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers would be able to get green cards.”

In other words, the point is to make sure that guest workers can become citizens. Whereas a rational guest worker program would repatriate workers when they are no longer needed, the Times wants the workers to become citizens. The only logic for this is the desire to inundate the U.S. with uneducated, low-skilled, non-White citizens.

This bears emphasis. A rational immigration program aimed at alleviating labor shortages would issue guest permits for a certain period—the practice, for example, of Israel. (In fact, there is no labor shortage in the U.S.; see below.) When the term is up, the worker goes home with his family. This was the practice when I was growing up in Wisconsin: Migrant workers from Mexico would harvest crops and then go back to Mexico; there was no possibility of them becoming citizens.

Allowing workers to become citizens is not an interest of business and certainly not in the interest of any society that wants to maintain a national identity or the dominance of its founding racial/ethnic group. It is certainly not in the interests of taxpayers (and businesses and businessmen are taxpayers) given the costs of importing millions of uneducated workers in terms of welfare use, etc. (see below).

But it is in the interests of ethnic groups who stand to gain more power by having more of their people become citizens (the proposed bill includes $150,000,000 for pro-amnesty groups like La Raza and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, with no oversight on how the money is spent). It is in the interests of individual immigrants to be able to escape the many dysfunctional societies around the world. And it is in the ethnic interests of Jews and Jewish organizations as a hostile elite who see immigration as diluting the power of the White majority whom they regard with fear (p. 246ff) because of the possibility that a homogeneous White society could rise up against Jews) and hostility (p. ivff) because of how Jews construe the history of anti-Semitism which warrants the dispossession of White, Christian civilization). These comments by Larry Auster illustrate both of these motivations:

Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Front Page Magazine, 22 June, 2004)

This is ethnic hardball pure and simple. American immigration policy since 1965 has been a war on the traditional White majority—a war that is on the verge of being won.

As noted, the Jewish approach to immigration policy spans the Jewish political spectrum. It is therefore not surprising that this approach is quite visible among Jewish Republicans. Recently hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer announced a 6-figure donation to a group favoring the Gang of Eight bill (“GOP mega-donor backs immigration reform“). (Singer is also noteworthy for supporting homosexual marriage within the Republican Party.)

Singer favors a bill that satisfies all three of the Jewish criteria for immigration policy. First, it goes without saying that the bill is not tailored to the interests of White America in retaining a White majority; the vast majority of immigrants will be non-White. Second, the bill will result in a huge increase in the total numbers of immigrants. As reported in The Daily Caller, it would probably bring in around 40 million new American citizens within the next 10 years—around 4 times the rate of present rate of legal immigration which is already disastrous.

By 2024, the inflow would include an estimated 9.2 million illegal immigrants, plus 2.5 million illegals who arrived as children — dubbed ‘Dreamers’ — plus roughly 3.4 million company-sponsored employees with university degrees, said the unreleased analysis. The majority of the inflow, or roughly 17 million people, would consist of family members of illegals, recent immigrants and of company-sponsored workers … NumbersUSA’ said that its estimates of a 33 million inflow “are conservative … [because they do] not attempt to project increases in these categories that are certain to occur in future years,” once many of the new immigrants seek green cards for their overseas relatives. Also, some categories of immigrants are uncapped, and the analysis “does not attempt to project increases in these [family unification] categories that are certain to occur in future years,” it says. The pending bill allows illegal immigrants to bring their overseas spouses and children into the country, says the NumbersUSA report. If that provision is implemented, “it could more than double the [illegal immigrant inflow] number shown in the chart,” bringing the total inflow to 40 million by 2024, it said.

We can safely assume that leaving family-related categories uncapped will lead to the higher estimates—forty million non-Whites in the next 10 years, with no end in sight as they continue to bring their relatives. This will significantly speed up the coming minority status of White Americans.

Third, the bill is not geared to satisfy the needs of the United States as a whole. Harvard economist George Borjas has shown that the real winners of immigration are businesses who hire immigrants and the immigrants themselves, and the losers are native-born workers. (VDARE’s Ed Rubenstein has lots on this.) But helping the immigrants and certain businesses is not going to help the rest of their base, and allowing in millions of new Democrats will surely be the end of the Republicans as a national party. If Republicans couldn’t elect a president in 2012 despite a poor economy and with Whites being 72% of the electorate, imagine how much more impossible will it be in 10 years when Whites’ share of the electorate is much less and non-Whites vote overwhelmingly for Democrats as the party of more immigration and lucrative benefits like health care and welfare.

Another indication that the bill is not intended to benefit the U.S. is that it is being considered in the context of chronically high unemployment. From listening to proponents of the bill, one would think that there was a severe labor shortage in the U.S., but as Roy Beck of NumbersUSA notes:

Nearly every section of the Gang Amnesty bill seems to add more foreign workers to compete with unemployed and underemployed Americans. The Gang apparently believes that the way to help the 20 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job is to give out another 20-30 million lifetime work permits to foreign citizens over the next decade. This bill would further flood labor markets at the lower-skill levels where real wages have declined 10% to 22% since 1980. If the bill passes, the chances of Americans with no more than a high school education entering the middle class may disappear. But it isn’t just the low-end where Americans are threatened. The bill would make huge increases in importing higher-educated workers at a time when around half of all recent American college graduates either have no job at all or they aren’t working in a degree job. The under-32 Millennial Generation already is in danger of being a lost generation. After this bill, we may see these young adults spend the rest of their lives only partly engaged in the economy as they depend on government and family. [Emphasis in original.]

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies:

The total number of less-educated citizens (ages 18 to 65) not working in the first quarter of this year is 27.8 million, up from 24 million in the first quarter of 2007 and 22.2 million in the first quarter of 2000. These individuals are either unemployed or out of the labor market entirely. In total (for all education levels), there are 55.4 million adult citizens ages 18 to 65 currently not working, up from 44.4 million in same quarter of 2007 and 38.1 million in 2000.

So they want to bring in millions of uneducated (and low-IQ) immigrants well known to be a drain on public services—from welfare to education. (Update, May 6, 2013: The Heritage Foundation provides a “conservative” estimate of a cost of $6.3 trillion over the lifetime of the illegal immigrants and that “if amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.) The main focus is once again on the chain migration of the uneducated and their families. Steven A. Camarota also of the CIS, testified in the Senate Judiciary committee on the huge impact that education has on the fiscal outcomes of immigrants, particularly on use of the welfare system and payment of taxes.

From Steven A. Camarota, “Why Less-Skilled Immigration and Amnesty Are so Costly to Taxpayers.” Source: Public-use file of the March 2011 Current Population Survey. Welfare programs include SSI, TANF, food stamps, WIC, free lunch, public/subsidized housing and Medicaid.

Further, those who become naturalized will be allowed to bring in their parents who, being older, naturally have high needs for health care and immediately become eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

It gets worse. Amazingly, despite the tough language against welfare use, the bill is written so that uneducated, low-skill immigrants will be immediately eligible for welfare. Mark Krikorian again:

There’s no meaningful bar to amnestying people living off the taxpayer dime. In fact, given the widespread use of welfare by illegal-immigrant households (nearly half collect some means-tested benefit, mainly food assistance and Medicaid), an amnesty couldn’t work if welfare recipients were barred. That’s the reason for this [from the bill]: Immigrants will also have to prove they can support themselves; what level of income constitutes that ability is still being debated (the Gang is currently considering 125 percent of the federal poverty level). Understand that incomes “in or near poverty” — i.e., below 200 percent of the poverty level — typically pay no income taxes and are eligible for means-tested welfare. So setting the floor at 125 percent of poverty guarantees amnesty and eventual citizenship for people who (by the federal government’s reckoning) cannot support themselves. What’s more, regulations already offer imaginative ways around similar requirements elsewhere in immigration law (food stamps, for instance, are not counted as welfare for purposes of immigration) and there’s no reason to expect any different here. And on top of that, most of those existing income requirements in immigration law are completely ignored. Like the immigration-security triggers, the welfare limits are merely there to dupe Republicans into voting for the bill; the moment it’s signed, they turn back into pumpkins and mice. Anyone who claims to care about national sovereignty or fiscal responsibility would be either a fool or a liar to vote for this sham.

Finally, the staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions, leader of the patriotic forces in the Senate, has noted that amnestied immigrants will be eligible for welfare benefits from state and local governments, and that their children will be eligible to receive benefits because they are automatically citizens under the birthright citizenship. Of course, the latter phenomenon is the main reason why so many illegal immigrants are already receiving welfare benefits (see above chart).

The only logic for this is altruism: White American taxpayers are being asked to provide massive benefits for people of other races and ensure that they become a political minority in the bargain. The immigration bill is a prime example of elite control, completely contrary to the attitudes and interests of White America. As expected, altruism is a tough sell, thus explaining why the MSM has basically ignored the costs embedded in the proposed bill.

But despite the media blackout, most Americans and the vast majority of White Americans are clearly opposed to it. As reported in the Daily Caller article, a recent poll indicated that 55% of Americans want less immigration. Only 18 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of independents favor an increase in legal immigration—numbers that would doubtless be much lower if the Whites being polled knew what was really in the bill. (In this video, Sen. Schumer claims Americans are “overwhelmingly” in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.”) Republican elites are completely out of touch with their (overwhelmingly White) base on this issue.

The horrifying thing is that the Gang of Eight bill only speeds up what is already happening. Unless one believes in miracles—particularly the miracle that the uneducated, low-IQ non-White masses will be transformed into looking like middle-class White Americans in terms of educational accomplishment, welfare use, and family patterns — the future is bleak indeed. The politically dominant non-White majority of the future

will demand high levels of welfare and other government benefits;

will demand high levels of immigration of people like themselves;

will demand affirmative action at the expense of Whites to bring about outcomes that benefit themselves;

will inevitably increase the tax burden on Whites given that the vast majority will pay no federal income taxes;

will be firmly centered in the Democratic Party as the party of the new permanent majority.

This is without even considering the costs to Whites repeatedly emphasized at TOO: the general costs of multiculturalism in terms of political alienation and lack of social capital, the loss of the political power to determine its own future, and the likely increasing victimization at the hands of the hostile elite and its non-White allies. (Immigrants quickly subscribe to the “Whites are evil racists” meme.)

All the actors in this drama, except White Americans, are vigorously pursuing their self-interest. White Americans are expected to be altruistic benefactors to the poor and tempest-tost, no matter what the costs to themselves. Any objection is sure to result in moralistic condemnations of racism and bigotry. As Jerry Kammer notes in his article on Sulzberger:

In late 2012, a Times editorial touted its inclusive ideas for reform with this warning: “The hard-liners against reform — including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists — have not gone away.” This claim to see evil motivations among those it criticizes is the flip side of the editorial page’s ability not to see non-American flags waved by those it supports. It is a familiar trope at the Times. … This stridency matters because the Times represents the pinnacle of American journalism. Its editorials are followed by engaged citizens across the political spectrum … .

The reason altruism is so problematic in evolutionary biology is that altruists go extinct because, in the absence of ways to make sure that selfishness doesn’t pay off (such as by expelling the selfish), they lose out to those who selfishly pursue their interests. Quite obviously, unless Whites stop their altruism, they will indeed end up as nothing more than museum specimens—much to the satisfaction of our hostile elite and its non-White allies.