Recent News

Why has the Main Stream Media suddenly been reporting that Americans favor Amnesty? The answer is simple—they’re using phony poll results to support their preferred policy.

Pollaganda, along with pseudo-scholarship and phony government statistics (also here), has become an important tool of the bipartisan and totalitarian system that is pushing open borders.

People used to criticize Bill Clinton for following poll results rather than leading. [Leaders As Followers, By Maureen Dowd, New York Times, January 12, 1997] Political consultants have since solved the problem of the invertebrate pol: Manufacture a fake public opinion that supports the politician they’re working for.

The basic form of pollaganda questions goes something like this:

• If I told you that there’s a mayonnaise that tastes every bit as delicious as Hellman’s, but has zero calories, would you buy it?

This is the sort of “polling” for which the Gang of Eight’s paymasters have paid millions of dollars, within a $1.5 billion lobbying campaign, in order to ram Amnesty (along with a logically-unrelated but donor-enriching increase in legal immigration) through Congress.

The result: “findings” about public opinion that insult the intelligence. Anyone who has followed the immigration debate knows that while a majority of Democrats support Amnesty, approximately 70 percent of the American public have long opposed Amnesty, with overwhelming opposition by Republican voters (as opposed to the traitors leading the Party). (See Poll Exposes Elite-Public Clash On Immigration, By Sam Francis, October 24, 2002.)

Recently, however, apparently believing that the American people will swallow anything, the Slave Power and its hired lobbyists began promoting frankly incredibly claims about public support for amnesty.

Last spring saw a flood of phony polls, national polls on April 25, and then on June 13, a Super Tuesday-style blowout of pro-amnesty poll results from allegedly 29 states: Idaho, Utah, Illinois, Maine, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Wyoming, Kansas, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. (The foregoing list, actually of 31 states, is from Politico, which did not explain the discrepancy.)

The pollsters behind the April 25 national push poll putsch asserted no fewer than 78 percent of Republicans supported amnesty. [Attitudes on immigration reform: an analysis of research, Research conducted by The Winston Group for: Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the National Immigration Forum Action Fund and the Partnership for a New American Economy, April 25, 2013.]

The June 13 state polls asserted that an average of just under 68 percent of all voters for all 29 states polled supported the Bill.

In other words, Resistance Is Futile!--only the lunatic fringe supports patriotic immigration reform!!

The April 25 national push poll was conducted by the Winston Group on behalf of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the National Immigration Forum Action Fund and the Partnership for a New American Economy. [Poll: Two-thirds of Republicans support immigration reform bill, Matt K. Lewis, Daily Caller, April 25, 2013]

The June 13 state push polls were conducted by Public Policy Polling and Harper Polling, on behalf of an evil/stupid coalition: Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch’s Partnership for a New American Economy; Republicans for Immigration Reform (Bush II Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez); and the Reconquista/racial socialist Alliance for Citizenship (La Raza, SEIU, etc.). [POLL: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Senate Immigration Reform Bill by Kirsten Gibson, Think Progress, June 13, 2013.]

A typical report:

In a polling memo set for release Thursday– and shared early with POLITICO—Democratic pollster Tom Jensen and Republican pollster Brock McCleary reveal

Despite the best laid plans of mice and John Boehner, the GOP Establishment cannot get any credit for trying to quietly sell an Amnesty pig in a border security poke. By standing strong against the Amnesty, Steve King has become the bull in the House Leadership’s china shop.  Not surprisingly, the Sunday New York Times took Congress’s leaving for what could be a pivotal August recess to beat the drum for Amnesty and to attack King in its editorial entitled Of Courage and Cantaloupes [August 3, 2013 ].

The NYT used the word “cantaloupe” because of Steve King’s celebrated comment that some illegal aliens are drug mules  with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling marijuana on their backs across the border—a controversy I’ve addressed here and here and here.  The NYT attacks King and praises the pro-illegal alien demonstrators who delivered cantaloupes to congressional Republicans with the note “This cantaloupe was picked by immigrants in California. You gave Steve King a vote. Give us a vote for citizenship.”

The NYT motive for bringing up Steve King and the cantaloupes is explicit:

If reason doesn’t work, maybe embarrassment will, unease at

James Fulford writes:  VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has (finally) updated the Kindle edition of his much-denounced 1995 best seller Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster with this Foreword, and improved formatting. We hope to provide a print version soon--the original publisher allowed it to slip out of print, as you will read below. The Foreword provides a new perspective, but the underlying facts remain the same, and remain relevant.

During this August recess, it's going to be important for people to communicate with their Congressmen, who will be spending the month visiting their constituents. As Mickey Kaus wrote in the Daily Caller, in August, "Silence=Amnesty."

If you don't want Amnesty, tell your Congressman! That way you too can avoid the "curses of those who come after."

By a curious coincidence, I began writing the Foreword to this Kindle edition of Alien Nation exactly seventeen years to the day since I wrote the Afterword to the original paperback edition—just before Christmas 1995.

(For the Kindle edition, we have moved the Afterword so that it follows directly after these remarks, and is in turn followed by what now seems like an amazing series of laudatory quotations from reviews by people who would now probably like to deny it.

(I never liked the title, by the way. I wanted to call the book Electing A New People after the now-famous Brecht poem. And I still think that would have been better. But imposing titles on authors seems to give commercial publishers their moment of creative thrill.)

The Alien Nation Afterword remains my most productive spasm in forty years in professional journalism: about 7,000 words in thirty straight hours.

I remember that, most of that day and into the night, I was looking out through my office window into an intense Connecticut Berkshire snowstorm, with a row of birds perched unmoving on a power line, fluffed up against the intense cold. I felt sorry for them and wondered how they could survive—not realizing, of course, that they would prove a pretty good symbol of the ordeal of immigration patriots in the coming years.

The blazing red dawn revealed a subzero winter wonderland—and a family of deer legally immigrated into our yard to claim asylum under a yew hedge.

The Afterword was so easy to write because I’d been composing answers to Alien Nation’s critics in my head throughout that intense year of book promotion. The Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said that he wrote an entire book in his head while a prisoner in the Gulag. I now believe that this can be done.

Plus the writing was easy because, incredible though it may now seem, at the end of 1995 the cause of patriotic immigration reform seemed so obviously on the verge of victory. (We now call it “patriotic immigration reform” to distinguish immigration reduction and rationalization from the…other kind of reform, Amnesty plus a massive cheap-labor pig-out, whose advocates have hijacked the perfectly innocent term “immigration reform” in their typically disingenuous way).

Intellectually, the immigration enthusiasts were utterly routed, unable to respond to the sudden refutation of clichés upon which they had relied for years—except with personal abuse, which I viewed with contempt.

Nearly two decades later, this is still the case—but, alas, I have learned in the interim that mud really does stick.

Politically, everything had fallen into place. As I described in the Afterword, the Jordan Commission reported mid-year, recommending serious cutbacks in legal immigration—and President Bill Clinton endorsed its recommendations. The Republicans controlljed both the U.S. House and the Senate, so the passage of the Smith-Simpson bill, which embodied the Jordan recommendations, seemed inevitable. Even Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, more recently Sheldon Adelson’s catspaw in the 2012 presidential primaries, had sponsored a bipartisan task force on illegal immigration that, among other things, recommended ending birthright citizenship.

In addition, the 1996 Presidential Election was less than a year away. President Clinton was widely assumed to be mortally wounded after his party had lost control of Congress in 1994. And among the GOP contenders was Patrick J. Buchanan, in my opinion the outstanding political thinker of the era, who actually understood the immigration issue and had the courage and the ability to use it.

Well…it didn’t work out that way. To cut a distressing story short:

• In early 1996, Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary—but, assailed with a concatenated barrage of abuse unprecedented since the 1964 Goldwater campaign, was subsequently isolated and snuffed out.

As the columnist Lars-Erik Nelson, one of the small but honorable group of liberals who have recognized the reality of current immigration policy’s immiseration of the working class, said to me after we both appeared on the CSPAN morning show: “All the money in the world would have come down on [Buchanan]” had he won the subsequent Arizona primary (which he initially appeared to have done). Nelson’s premature death in 2000, like that of Barbara Jordan in 1996, was one of a long series of unpredictable misfortunes that have befallen the cause of patriotic immigration reform.

I must say, however, that I regard Buchanan’s

The economy added 162,000 jobs in July according to the BLS survey of business establishments. While below expectations, it was enough to bring the unemployment down to 7.4% —the lowest jobless rate since December 2008.

Attorney General Eric “My People” Holder demonstrates once again that the Obama administration will continue its war against the historic American nation by any means necessary.

In the latest outrage, AG Holder, who didn’t like a Supreme Court decision, has announced he’ll fight it by using a lower court to make an end run around it.

Now just let that sink in a minute. The Obama/Holder regime has no problem with overreaching judicial tyranny from the Supreme Court, as long as the court is upholding Obamacare or same-sex marriage or such. But when the court rules against something the administration supports, that just can’t stand. So Holder is off to get a lower court to stymie the Supreme Court decision.

On the other hand, it’s not surprising. After all, the goal here is not to uphold the rule of law, but to further the Agenda. And the Agenda does not respect the historic American nation and its traditions.

The issue here: the 1965 Voting Rights Act, passed at the height of the Civil Rights era. It included “preclearance” provisions, restricting seven southern states, Arizona and Alaska, plus some smaller entities in other states (see map) in regards to future changes to their election laws.

What it means is that these states can’t change election laws without the permission of the U.S. Department of Justice (how convenient for Holder) or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. These provisions were last renewed in 2006, during the Bush administration.

That situation, though, has just been altered by Shelby County v. Holder, a Supreme Court decision handed down June 25^th, 2013. The Court struck down Section 4(b) and made Section 5 inoperable. (Shelby County is in Alabama).

Shelby County v. Holder was yet another of these 5-4 decisions,

It came out at the trial that the late Trayvon Martin, before his savage, possibly racially-motivated attack on George Zimmerman, referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker”.

Joan Walsh, a Nice White Lady who is “editor at large” at Salon, commented that whites had no business complaining about racial epithets (even if they preceded what in one way or another was actually a hate crime) because

"no social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as 'crackers'."[Crackers, please… | Who cares if Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker”? White grievance-mongers, that’s who, June 27, 2013]

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal sort of agrees with this thesis:

"in the main, true. Today there is systematic discrimination against whites, but to call it "oppression" would be a gross overstatement."['Cracking' the Case | A racial turnabout in the George Zimmerman trial, July 1, 2013]

Taranto points out that there is not, in the United States, systematic discrimination against blacks (illegal for almost 50 years, and monitored by a powerful Federal government) but there is, by law and various Supreme Court and Executive Branch actions, "systematic discrimination against whites". (Taranto occasionally has a rush of common sense to the head on racial issues, but rarely carries it far enough.)

On Twitter, he gets some skepticism from someone called Jonathan Potts, who wonders what harm has been done to whites:

@jamestaranto What would you consider "systematic discrimination against whites?"

— Jonathan Potts (@jepotts) July 1, 2013

.@jepotts Racial preferences, set-asides and unequal enforcement of civil rights laws. @DianneKeeb

— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) July 1, 2013

Well, I could say more about the social order "whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as 'crackers', " and Paul Kersey  has said a lot more. But what makes liberals skeptical about anti-white discrimination is that whites aren't failures. That is, they don’t fill the jails, they’re not on welfare that much, they do a lot of the important jobs in society, and they keep passing standardized tests.

In a 2003 column about the defenestration of Trent Lott, removed from his post as Senate Majority Leader for a remark, never mind what, that supposedly offended blacks, Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

In the old feudal system, there were no First Amendment rights. The legally privileged were free to engage in hate speech and to verbally harass others, but any commoner who replied in kind could be sued or have his tongue cut out.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott

I recently validated Rep. Steve King’s quip that there are 100 times more drug-smuggling illegal alien minors than valedictorians. So did Tom Tancredo. But needless to say, the Main Stream Media is still determined to discredit King:

• [Fact Check: Steve King Says Valedictorians and Drug Smugglers Could Be Legalized, by Jordan Fabian, ABC News/Univision, July 25, 2013;
• 4 Pinocchios for Rep. Steve King’s claim on valedictorians and smugglers, by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, July 29, 2013]

King was speaking figuratively and not suggesting that his was a perfect statistic. He has clarified, according to Glenn Kessler:

I wasn’t talking about the ratio. Border Patrol agents don’t know how many valedictorians we have that are also ‘DREAMers.’ In fact, I don’t know that the public knows either. But I can tell you it’s not nearly as many as the advocates for the DREAM Act would like to have you believe.

As I showed in my subsequent article documenting several fake “undocumented valedictorians,” this statement is indisputably correct.

But ABC’s Fabian [Email him] did not bother to even address how many illegal alien valedictorians there are.

And WaPo’s Kessler simply argued that King “offered no evidence for why the percentage of valedictorians among ‘DREAMers’ would be any less than in the general population.”

Of course, it’s absurd to demand that King “offer evidence” for everything he said—this was a journalistic interview, not a Ph.D. thesis. But, as I noted in my initial defense of King, Hispanics do have lower test scores than whites, and much higher drop-out rates than whites and even African-Americans. According to the College Board, which administrates the SATs, only 23% of Hispanics have test scores that show they are ready for college in contrast to 43% of the general population. [SAT Report: 77% of Latinos Not Ready for College, by Bryan Llenas. Fox News Latino, September 25, 2012]

Indeed, the lower average SAT scores by Hispanics understate how unlikely they are to be valedictorians: the disparities are even larger among the top achievers.

According to the College Board, the 99^th percentile for Mexican Americans in Critical Reading, Math, and Writing is a 700. In other words, less than one percent of Mexican Americans score a 700 or above on these categories. In contrast, a 700 in Reading, Math, and Writing, respectively, is only the 91^st, 75^th, and 89^th percentile for Asians and 94^th, 93^rd, and 95^th percentile for whites.

And even these numbers overstate Hispanic performance—because they are already less likely to take the SATs than other ethnic groups.

Although SATs are correlated strongly with academic performance, they are not grades. However, the College Board also recorded the average grades of students. Hispanics had a 3.21 GPA, compared to 3.43 for whites and 3.5 for Asians. (SAT Percentile Ranks for 2012 College-Bound Seniors [PDF], The College Board.)

So contra Kessler, there is plenty of “evidence for why the percentage of valedictorians among ‘DREAMers’ would be any less than in the general population.” [VDARE.com Note: Jason Richwine made this point in his doctoral thesis, IQ And Immigration Policy. ]

More points:

• Kessler acknowledges

Immigration patriots—meaning real Americans—can only view the top GOP politicians in the Old Dominion with pity and contempt.

• In March, gubernatorial nominee Ken Cuccinelli scrubbed his website of its immigration page. [Ken Cuccinelli’s airbrushed policies, Washington Post, March 19, 2013]
• In July, Mark Obenshain, the GOP candidate for attorney general—who launched his career on the memory of his father Richard, tragically killed in a 1978 plane crash shortly after winning the U.S. Senate nomination—sent fawning Ramadan greetings to the commonwealth’s Mohammedans.
• Most recently, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a fairly reliable conservative who represents the state’s 6th congressional district, began working with…
• House Majority Leader Eric Cantor , who represents Virginia’s 7th, on a KIDS Act that would grant amnesty for illegal-alien children.

Goodlatte is a Christian Scientist; Cantor is Jewish. So we have one man who believes in the 19th-century version of Scientology, and another whose coreligionists have arguably wrecked U.S. immigration policy and are now pushing hard for the 2013 Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill, trying to give the Left a major gift: more Democrat voters.

But let’s take these one at a time. Why did the Cooch, as he is known, get out the Stalinist cyber-erasers and wipe his website clean of immigration talk? As The Washington Post noted, he was, to some degree, what the Left disparages as a “hardliner” on immigration. He supported Arizona’s law that permitted police to check the immigration status of those stopped lawfully by police, and then issued an opinion that Prince William County’s cops could indeed inquire about the immigration status of those they stop. He even wanted, at one time, to end birthright citizenship.

But now as James Hohmann recently reported in Politico, his “immigration tone varies with venue.” [July 25, 2013]

Perhaps Cuccinelli fears a backlash from the state’s Leftist Catholics and their bishops, who peddle the lie that Catholic social teaching dogmatically requires assent to their nutty position on immigration.

But another possibility is this: The pro-homosexual, pro-abortion Left and Main Stream Media (where distinguishable) have successfully painted Cuccinelli (along with E.W. Jackson, the surprise black candidate for lieutenant governor) as religious extremists. This has panicked “moderate” Republicans into thinking Cuccinelli cannot win the election against Democrat Terry McAuliffe, a renegade Catholic leftist. With typical cowardice, they are bolting. Thus Bill Bolling, who quit the governor’s race after Cuccinelli’s forces took control of the state party’s nominating process, has formed the Virginia Mainstream Project to convince Republicans that the only important issues for Virginians are jobs and the economy.

By retreating on immigration, Cuccinelli and his consultants probably think they are lowering his profile on what is in some sense a “social” issue, at least as the Left portrays it. For the Left,

 In my recent defense of Rep. Steve King for daring to mention the Hate Fact that there are many more illegal alien drug mules than valedictorians, I made two points that could perhaps be challenged:

• First, I pointed to the dismal academics at North Miami High School, alma mater of Daniela Palaez, the most celebrated “undocumented valedictorian,” as an example of how being valedictorian at a low quality school may not require that much skill.

I could be accused of cherry-picking one example to be indicative of a larger class—kind of like how the Main Stream Media will cherry pick a few alleged valedictorians to be indicative of illegal aliens.  

• Second, I also expressed skepticism that some of these “undocumented valedictorians were actually valedictorians, without coming up with a specific example other than a story about honor students from a 1987 novel, The Bonfire of the Vanities.

So now, in the interest of fairness, I have researched as many other “undocumented valedictorians” I could find. I found articles discussing unnamed undocumented valedictorians (I'm an Illegal Immigrant at Harvard, Newsweek, November 27, 2010), and a New York Times article about a named undocumented valedictorian from almost 30 years ago, Harold Fernandez, who apparently has since had a  successful career as an MD:  An Undocumented Princetonian By Joseph Berger, December 29, 2009.

However, I’ve only found five (5) actual undocumented valedictorians who came out of the shadows to give us their real names.

Of those cases, two involved students who came from schools with dismal academic records. In the three other cases, I found another valedictorian who graduated from the same high school the same year.

In other words, these three “undocumented valedictorians” are, well, undocumented.

• Vidal Tapia, International High School, Paterson NJ.

According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, illegal alien “Vidal Tapia is by all accounts International High School’s brightest prospect… he carries a 4.0 GPA, a National Honor Society membership and a slew of community service hours.” [Paterson high school valedictorian faces 10-year ban from U.S. due to immigration status, March 11, 2011]

But according to US News and World Report, in 2010-11 there were 66 12^th graders at International High School, compared to 110 10^th graders, suggesting a very high drop-out rate. The graduation rate was only 53%. The school was 66% Hispanic, 29% black, 4% white, and 1% Asian. 72% of the students were “economically disadvantaged”. Only 33% of the students were “Proficient” in Math. US News did not give the reading Proficiency rate

• Solanlly Canas: High School in the Community

The New Haven Independent ran a sob story about Solanlly Canas’ failure to get financial aid for college because of her illegal status. [New Haven Rallies For Solanlly & Chastity, by Melissa Bailey, May 3, 2013] The story had a happy ending—taxpayers and fellow students now subsidize her education. (I should also add that Miss Canas, like the Dr. Fernandez mentioned above,  is Colombian and appears to be of largely Spanish ancestry and thus not representative of the average illegal immigrant population.)

The Independent says Canas was valedictorian at the “High School in the Community” in New Haven. Though designated as a “magnet school”, its senior class of 55 is just over half the size of its freshman class of 97, suggesting a high drop-out rate.  Overall, it’s 43% black, 34% Hispanic, 22% white, and 1% Asian. Some 77% of students are economically disadvantaged. Only 51% are proficient at reading and 32% are proficient at Math.

• Henry Mejia, Yorktown High School, Arlington, VA

In an NPR puff piece about a special scholarship fund for illegal aliens, it’s reported that Henry Mejia is “graduating as the valedictorian from Yorktown High School, and is headed off to Bucknell University.” [Scholarships For Undocumented Students, Including One Valedictorian,  By Jonathan Wilson, June 10, 2011]

I am familiar with Yorktown High School. It’s located in an affluent suburb of Arlington, VA.  Yorktown has a senior class of 547 students, which is actually higher than the younger years. Some 62% of the students are white, 10% are Asian, 18% are Hispanic, and 7% of white. 14% of the students are economically disadvantaged. 98% are proficient in reading 95% are proficient in math. Suffice to say, graduating