Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: WashPost: America Can’t Declare Economic Independence Because Not Enough Whites
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi ... ndependence-not-enough-whites/
Published: Jun 24, 2016
Author: Julia Hahn
Post Date: 2016-06-25 10:07:27 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 3417
Comments: 20
The Washington Post is reporting that U.S. might not be able to follow in the U.K.’s footsteps in reclaiming its economic independence because of the nation’s demographic makeup, which is the result of four decades of record high green card issuances to foreign nationals. In a piece entitled, “No, Brexit Isn’t A Good Sign For Trump,” Washington Post’s Kim Soffen writes: “There are certainly similarities between the referendum and the [Trump] campaign. Both are largely driven by immigration… Both are nationalist movements. Both are an instance of the will of the people going against the wishes of the elite… And their demographic support looks quite similar too.” Yet Soffen writes that Brexit may not be a harbinger for Donald Trump’s future electoral success because the U.S. does not have as many white voters as Britain does. “Largely at issue here is demographics. The British electorate is overwhelmingly white – 87 percent of its population is, according to its 2011 census. That’s compared to the United States’ 74 percent in 2014. That difference is significant for what direction each country votes.” Indeed, while establishment media has pushed the narrative that immigration is a much more significant issue in Europe than it is the U.S., the facts do not bear this out. The U.S. has accepted 10 million more migrants from outside its borders than the European Union has absorbed from outside its borders, even though the EU has 200 million more people than the United States. Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, minority babies now outnumber white babies in the United States. Soffen reports that polling data suggests non-whites tended to support the globalist position over the nationalist policy. “Just like more minority-dense areas in the United States, like cities, tend to vote Democrat, minority-dense areas in the United Kingdom tended to vote to stay in the EU. In London, where 60 percent of citizens are non-white according to the 2011 Census, 60 percent of votes went against Brexit, compared to 48 percent nationwide.” “Since the U.S. is far more diverse than the U.K., Brexit’s predictive power is even weaker,” Soffen concludes. The Washington Post suggests that in order to have nationalist policies, the U.S. has to have a large population of whites in its country. Perversely, the Washington Post is essentially arguing that foreign nationals do not seem to have a strong enough allegiance to their new country to support a nationalist agenda over a more global, internationalist agenda — an argument, which dramatically undercuts the Washington Post’s general narrative on immigration and contradicts a core theme of its human interests stories, which seem designed to advance legislation that would expand U.S. immigration. The demographic makeup the United States—which the Washington Post posits is the reason the U.S. could perhaps be incapable of voting in favor of reclaiming its national sovereignty—is the result of a Ted Kennedy-backed 1965 immigration rewrite, which opened up America’s borders to the world. Kennedy’s immigration law lifted the immigration caps that had been place and opened up U.S. visas to migrants all across the globe. While about nine in ten of the immigrants who came to the United States during the 19th and 20th century hailed from Europe, the 1965 law inverted that figure. Today about nine out of every ten new immigrants brought into the country on green cards come from non-Western countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle East. Following the law’s passage, 59 million immigrants entered the United States. Including their children, it added 72 million new residents to the U.S. population. In 1965, according to Pew, the country was 84 percent white, 11 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic and less than 1 percent Asian– i.e. it had a white population that very similar in size to the white population of the U.K. today. Unless Congress proposes legislation to curb the U.S. autopilot visa issuances, Pew projects that in forty years time as a result of large-scale immigration, “no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the U.S. population,” as “whites are projected to become less than half of the U.S. population by 2055.” Therefore, by 2065, the nation would be 46 percent white, 24 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Asian and 13 percent black. However, members of the globalist caucus in Washington including House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Barack Obama, have all pushed to accelerate this demographic transformation and have championed proposals to dramatically expand the nation’s record high immigration admissions. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#7. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
Yes, Kennedy backed it ... but "In total, 74% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans voted for passage of this bill." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality _A ct_of_1965#Legislative_history Even back then, the GOPe was selling out America to give its corporate masters "cheap" (for them) labor.
What created such impetus for so much enthusiasm of opening the national borders?
Like I said, one significant factor was: Even back then, the GOPe was selling out America to give its corporate masters "cheap" (for them) labor.
In 1965, America was at its zenith from an economics perspective as America was bustling with international trade. Today, America is at its lowest point in history for international trade, that is to say, USA marketable products shipped to over-sea markets. Why do we need the same enthusiasm for immigration?
We don't need it - corporate globalists with no love for this country want it.
How can it be stopped?
Be nice if we could do it by voting corporate lapdogs out of office - failing that, some might suggest shooting the bastards.
In both presented cases, I think there is a word for it ... dreamland. Any other choices?
Nothing leaps to mind. You have any suggestions?
Voting for a third party candidate does not exactly get us any closer.
What's a better answer?
You and I both know all the choices stink. Some more than others.
My choice is to vote for the policies I prefer, knowing that those will not be the policies of the winning candidate ... this cycle.
There are no replies to Comment # 20. End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestis the result of a Ted Kennedy-backed 1965 immigration rewrite, which opened up America’s borders to the world.
#8. To: ConservingFreedom (#7)
#9. To: buckeroo (#8)
What created such impetus for so much enthusiasm of opening the national borders?
#10. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
#11. To: buckeroo (#10)
Why do we need the same enthusiasm for immigration?
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)
#13. To: buckeroo (#12)
#14. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
#16. To: buckeroo (#14)
Any other choices?
#17. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
Nothing leaps to mind. You have any suggestions?
#18. To: redleghunter (#17)
Voting for a third party candidate does not exactly get us any closer.
#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#18)
What's a better answer?
#20. To: redleghunter (#19)
Replies to Comment # 20.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]