Democrats Import Voters

I have heard people discuss how in religion there are open handed concepts and close handed concepts. I think the same applies in politics: in the libertarian field of politics – how much welfare should be disseminated, what degree of taxing the rich should be implemented, etc. – I feel like it is hard to entirely “disprove” or “prove” anything, since these are questions of philosophy rather than fact; thus, these are more open-handed concepts. But some political concepts are just factually not true – for example, global warming is simply not true (as shown in Politics and Conspiracies). This is (in my mind) a close-handed concept, with no room for debate.

The immigration debate falls into the camp of mostly “close handed” (though I guess the question of skilled immigration is more open handed). It just simply is true that the Biden admin did everything they possibly could to make it easier for illegal immigrants to enter America (which I will prove), and this is unacceptable. And it just simply is true that 3^rd world immigrants are on average bad for our country, and so we shouldn’t crazily let them all in. Here are some numbers for you on the great replacement:

My family lives in Texas but came from California – in 1900, the Hispanic population of California and Texas were 4% and 5% respectively, but now the Hispanic population of under 18 year olds in those states are 53% and 49%. By contrast, among under 18 year olds, only 25-29% of Texans are white (as of 2023), and only 23.4% are white in California (2022). The rest of the western world (even places like New Zealand and Australia) face the same issues with migration, though most places aren’t as far down the road as Texas. As far as I can tell, leftists will never stop pushing mass migration until every single formerly white country is like Texas, and it appears that they want even Texas to become even less white (as I will discuss, for example, the Biden admin tore down razor wire erected by Texas along the border). Thus, probably within my lifetime, white people will become outnumbered in every single country – or in other words, every single race gets to have a homeland, except for white people.

I have been taught my whole life that immigrants are the strength of our nation and that immigrants are more hard working than native born Americans – as if we need immigrants to do jobs because we are too lazy to do them ourselves. As if we should be embarrassed to not be immigrants ourselves, and immigrants are somehow more “American” than native born Americans.

This idea is very easy to disprove (which is why I think it is a “close handed” topic). So, I will disprove this idea here, and then I will propose some ideas pertaining to why I think we have been propagandized into having such a positive view of immigration in America (which is namely that immigrants have more leftist political views than Americans and are willing to work for less).

Important disclaimer: I don’t hate nonwhite people, nor do I want to kill them or hurt them, and I am sure that many of them are smarter than me (my only claim here is with regard to group averages, not hard and fast rules applying to every single person). Rather, I am a Christian, and I wish goodness upon every person, regardless of race and creed. I just think that white people deserve to have a homeland, just as every single other race gets to have one.

* And just to note, this essay is broadly addressed to immigrants from third world countries. Thus, firstly, this essay isn’t discussing immigration between countries that are already westernized. And secondly, this essay this essay won’t excessively differentiate between immigrants from South America or the middle east; I have seen a huge number of statistics for both groups (of which I will show a few in this essay), and every problem (from welfare usage, to crime, to political views, to lack of innovation) that is present in one group is also present in the other. Perhaps there is one special third world country that defies the stereotype, but again, identifying outliers is not the purpose of this essay – all I aim to prove here is that *on average* immigration from third world countries has not been very awesome.

** I’m sorry this essay is sort of mean. I am a bad person. Forgive me…

The Post World War 2 Consensus

* I promise this essay will get to the facts on why mass migration is bad and the things the Democrat party has done. I just felt that I needed a bit more philosophical underpinnings first.

After world war 2, I think much of the west decided that the only way to prevent the rise of another “Hitler”, was to adopt the idea that you aren’t allowed to make valuation judgements of groups or make judgements based upon immutable characteristics, especially because (we are told without any evidence) group differences are smaller than differences within groups. In other words, the post-World War 2 consensus was that racism and xenophobia are essentially the most evil thing ever, the original sin of the western world.

Thus, many probably would gasp that I would dare claim that most nonwhite immigrants will never assimilate (as if I am going to jump straight from this conclusion to advocating killing people, which is of course insane and ridiculous). But if you are a sincere and honest person, this matter is unavoidably important and in 2025 we already have far more than enough evidence to know with certainty whether assimilation will happen or not: As I discuss in Race Blah Blah and here, the income of Hispanic people never equalizes, even to the second and third generation. Similarly, even after controlling for the socioeconomic status of parents, nonwhite people (aside from Asians), still have vastly lower incomes and SAT scores than white people, and vastly higher homicide rates (read these essays or read The Bell Curve by Charles Murray). Ironically, the main thing that we see in assimilation is that the longer Hispanic people stay in America, the more they use welfare (as I will show). So, to be a little bit of an edge lord: the most simplistic reason why these immigrants do so much worse is because they have a lower IQ, and they have a lower IQ because of genetics (adult intelligence is 75% to 85% heritable, and shared environment has no impact), which is perhaps because evolutionarily it requires greater intelligence to survive in cold places (I might as well be honest about this since I will be called racist either way; and of course there is variation among nonwhite people and many nonwhite people still have a high intelligence). To note an important detail: if family shared environment has no impact on intelligence, then that means that the income of families doesn’t affect intelligence, which aligns with the fact that the income of adopted children matches that of biological parents and has no resemblance to adopted parents whatsoever. Why else is it that white countries that were destroyed by war or communism (such as South Korea, Japan, Germany, Estonia, or the Check republic), were able to very rapidly recover, while no nonwhite country (except oil countries) has ever been able to achieve a high income, including nonwhite countries that have largely enjoyed peace?

Above: a map of race and income per capita in Brazil. Below: a map released by the heritage foundation of perceived government corruption.

Regarding the claim that there is more variation within groups than between groups, fun fact: African Americans have approximately a 11.6 times higher homicide rate than non hispanic white people, which is actually higher than gender differences in homicide rate – men have a 7.5 times higher homicide rate than women (and as I discuss in Race Blah Blah and Democrats are Authoritarian, these crime differences are not due to racism or the legacy of racism).

Nobody wants to take responsibility for this migration problem, and all I see is everyone pointing fingers at others. But it seems obvious that the ideology that you can’t make judgements based on immutable characteristics is ultimately responsible, as well as anyone who has pushed this ideology. How can you deport people, if country of birth is an immutable characteristic, and you think you can’t make judgements on immutable characteristics? How can you discuss the immense problems we face as a society from migrants, when every time you try to do so, a crowd of people starts yelling at you to not attack certain races because we can’t be racist? How can you be a good person while ruining people’s lives via deportation, if you think that the group differences between Mexicans and white people are so negligible that you are a bad person for even discussing them?

Naïve people probably are thinking that I am being too direct about immigration, because all I need to do is say that illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal. But this argument is inadequate and superficial – our issue is not with illegal immigration, but rather with mass migration in general. If we make this purely an issue of “legality”, all Democrats need to do is legalize the mass migration / replacement – which they already have been doing.

Similarly, naïve people might say I am being too direct, because all you need to do is note that it is hard for immigrants to assimilate if they come too quickly. But again, this is inadequate: our issue is not with the pacing of mass migration, but rather that the great replacement is happening at all. We don’t want to delay the inevitable time when every western country is no longer majority white – we want to entirely stop this.

I think many white people (deep down) understand that the differences between western countries and third world countries are probably due to average IQ, and the differences in IQ are due to genes. However, they think it is better to not discuss this and instead focus on cultural differences. My response is: firstly, this argument is naïve because nonwhite people aren’t going to see this as you being extra nice to them – rather they are just still going to hate you for daring to criticize their culture. But the greater harm is: this ideology somewhat permits mass migration because it offers the comforting lie that it is possible for assimilation to happen, whereas if the differences are genetic than assimilation probably won’t happen.

To all who ever supported migration: how dare you play around with the future of all western civilization by assuming assimilation will happen – when there is no evidence for this, and even African Americans, who have been here for over a century, have still not assimilated and have a homicide rate on par with Africa. As far as I can tell, anyone who is too fearful to address the question of genetics in the immigration question (when genetics almost always accounts for over half of variance in human traits, and family shared environment almost always accounts for zero of the variance, as explained in Race Blah Blah) is not a serious person and is surely unfit to manage immigration policy. In fact, I dare say that the genetics of an immigrant is vastly and immensely more important than any other factor they may possess, including education, religion, culture, or merit, because genetics persists from generation to generation, and thus if you accept an immigrant with bad genes that will have a permanent negative effect on your country across all time.

Will my message in these essays reach even a single person who is over the age of 30? It’s hard to tell, but among people in my generation, what I am saying is conventional knowledge. We have moved on from Hitler – yes, Hitler was bad, but so was Napoleon, and Alexander the Great, and Genghis Khan, and king George the third, and Pope Gregory IX. Our enemy is not Hitler or any other long dead historical figure, but rather Satan himself. The great evil we face in our generation is not communism, or antisemitism, or the axis powers, or monarchy, or the British empire, but rather the great replacement, and every person in our parent generation who lectured us for “judging people on immutable characteristics”, because “group differences are smaller than differences within groups” is in part responsible for the great replacement, and has betrayed us, their own children, by depriving us the homeland which they were privileged to be born into. They should be apologizing, not continuing to lecture us amidst the ruins of their failed ideology.

My parent generation mocks socialists and communists for not being able to update their ideology after seeing the repeated failures of communist countries. Well, are they any different? California – which still is overwhelmingly the most naturally beautiful place on earth – used to also overwhelmingly be the most advanced civilization on earth. My parents are from California! Now it is a cesspool everyone avoids; I went there for a week a year ago and someone broke into my car and stole my wallet; large parts of LA are literally slums and feel like part of Mexico. And that is but one example of the consequences of the criminality / poverty / stupid political views of migrants. There are no examples of mass migration from the third world ever not being a disaster (skilled migration is different). And yes, perhaps I am exaggerating this issue a bit, but it just haunts me because there is no resolution in sight – this will continue afflicting California for apparently all eternity since per the statistics I have seen the children and grandchildren of migrants have the same problems as the first generation. It’s just frustrating to see mass migration fail over and over again, yet people keep on pretending like “next time will be different”.

Yes, there is variation and some people from the third world are excellent high quality people, and of course in small ways there are some benefits to mass migration (for example, I think Mexican food is just the best). But does that really matter if on average mass migration is terrible? I feel really sorry for people from the third world, but I don’t think mass migration is the answer – 85% of people live in third world countries, and open borders will only result in every country becoming a third world country.

If you think I am “too obsessed with genetics”, then my response is that you are part of the problem. The tragedy of mass migration is so immense that anyone who lectures another person for saying truths about immigration or race is only upholding an evil ideology that has brought calamity to the western world. I would rather be the “villain” than have anything to do with supporting the liberal post world war two consensus ideology behind mass migration. I choose the ideology that makes the world better not worse, because that is the right thing to do.

I worry some may accuse my view point here as somehow being “dehumanizing”. Firstly, I don’t think what I have said is dehumanizing – after all, I have noted many times that there is variation within groups and not all nonwhite people are a monolith. The idea that you have to be offended if one particular categorization of yourself happens to be a negative one is just so dumb and narcissistic. For example, it is a fact that firstborn children tend to be more successful than latter-born children – yet I don’t think anyone would say I am “dehumanizing” latter-born children by disseminating this fact. Another example: I believe I have inherited a mostly genetic disease which my Mom has; if someone told me I have bad genes, I wouldn’t get super offended towards them, as if I am a narcissist; instead my response would be “you’re right, I wish my ancestors had done eugenics so that genes like mine were no longer in the gene pool LOL”. Put another way, I see “dehumanizing” as carrying two meanings: either it means “hurts someone’s feelings”, or it means “leads to a genocide”. Regarding the former, it seems obvious that the quantifiable material harms of mass migration are at least 100,000 times worse than anyone’s feelings being hurt. Regarding the latter – if you think that just because I am saying some groups are worse on average means I want to kill them then you are retarded (as a Christian, I believe we should love and serve all people regardless of race or creed). Or perhaps you are afraid that these facts will lead others to “dehumanize” nonwhite people because “the average population cannot be trusted to know the facts because we don’t want there to be another Holocaust” – which is of course terrible seeing it is based on the precept that we need to manipulate and gaslight others since we don’t trust them to think for themselves.

Theological Underpinnings

I’ve seen a lot of Christians advocate for the idea that paying attention to group membership is not in alignment with Christianity – a true Christian should be color blind and purely see others as individuals. Thus, here are a few scriptures addressing this:

God viewing people as groups and not just individuals

As the below scriptures outline, God clearly judges nations as a whole – not just individuals. These scriptures wouldn’t make sense if God was strictly “color blind”, because then he would have a myriad of individual judgements and not discuss collectives, and certainly not discuss executing judgement upon the third and fourth generation of sinners.

Exodus 20:5
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Numbers 14:18
18 The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Proverbs 14:34
34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

Jeremiah 18:7–10
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Mosiah 29:27
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

Intermarriage Forbidden

People often discount the scriptures in the Bible about not intermarrying (Deuteronomy 7:3–4, Ezra 9–10, Nehemiah 13:23–27) as being purely to preserve their religion from the idolatrous traditions of other nations. While partially true, this theory misses one important point: The wives of the initial patriarchs were also forbidden to marry the Canaanites and instead marry people from their own kindred (commandment to Isaac – Genesis 24:3–4, Genesis 28:1–2 – commandment to Jacob).

If you read genesis, you will know that said “kindred” were definitely idolaters (Abraham 1:5-6, Joshua 24:2). Ultimately, it appears that the only member of Abraham’s family who was not heathen was Lot – since he was the only one willing to listen to the Lord’s warning to leave their homeland (Abraham 2:6, Genesis 12:4) – and of course Isaac and Jacob weren’t commanded to and did not marry the descendants of Lot. This would leave everyone else in Abraham’s extended family as heathen – a fact reaffirmed by the story of how Rachel (wife of Jacob) stole her father Laban’s idol (Genesis 31:19)(and to note: Laban was the sister of Rebekah, Isaac’s wife). In fact, only after leaving the house of Laban (Jacob’s uncle) could Jacob command his servants to not worship strange gods (Genesis 35:2).

Thus, it seems like an oversimplification to say that the commandment to not marry the Canaanites was only based on avoiding heathen, if when the commandment was first put in place the alternate wives from the Canaanites were also heathen. The only logical conclusion I can draw here is that it must be the case that there was something genetically special about Abraham’s kindred that differentiated them from the Canaanites – and so it was important to God for His people to not have Canaanite genes.

As I will discuss from the Book of Mormon, the Jewish people during ancient times were very fair, like unto the original British people who settled North America. Could this be correlated with whatever genetic factors (and not religious factors) that separated the Canaanites from Abraham’s kindred? Could Abraham’s kindred being fair also relate to the fact that Abraham’s wife Sarah was so exceedingly beautiful that on two separate occasions Abraham had to pretend like she was his sister so that rulers didn’t kill him to take her as their wife (Genesis 12:11–14, Genesis 20:1–2)?

Having the Priesthood Requires a Certain Lineage

This scripture is also interesting: why is it that having the priesthood requires certain lineage?

Abraham 1:27
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Could it be that certain DNA helps convey the priesthood?

Brain waves during sleep are 75-88% heritable (Heritability of REM sleep neurophysiology in adolescence – Markovic, Kaess, Tarokh).
Sleep paralysis is 53% heritable (A twin and molecular genetics study of sleep paralysis and associated factors – Denis, French, et. al.).
Creative achieve is 43% to 67% heritable, with family shared environment having no impact (Heritability of Creative Achievement – Piffer, Hur).

Could there be some sort of gene that allows us greater access to the spirit of God, which also explains why intrinsic religiosity is 43% heritable (per this twin study), or at least between 35% and 55% heritable (per this review). Could it also explain why political affiliation is over 50% heritable with family shared environment having zero effect (study 1, study 2)?

People Are Not Equal

This scripture is interesting because it shows that not everyone’s souls are equal – thus somewhat contradicting the popular narrative of strict equality.

Abraham 3:22–23
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

America as a land of inheritance to God’s people (so not the whole world)

Since the context of this essay is immigration to north America, let’s address that: Popular culture teaches that North America is a “melting pot” for all different cultures. However, the scriptures tell us a completely different story: North America is specifically designated as a promised land for God’s people and no one else. So, not a melting pot:

2 Nephi 1:9
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

1 Nephi 13
15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

To give you the full context though, the Book of Mormon doesn’t say the Gentiles will always keep the gospel, but instead includes many warnings hinting that they will ultimate go astray (discussed more in Why The Mormon Church Might Be Deceived, Part 3 – Prophecies within LDS Scripture). Thus, my belief is that it isn’t a coincidence that the third world migration started just after the sexual revolution – rather, once white Americans ceased being God’s people, it was divine justice for our land to cease being our homeland.

Skin Color Deliberately Set up by God to Separate Different Peoples

2 Nephi 5:21-24
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

Black people excluded from the city of Enoch

Moses 7
18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
…22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
23 And after that Zion was taken up into heaven, Enoch beheld, and lo, all the nations of the earth were before him;

At last! Finally, I am done with the boring philosophical stuff and can start disseminating facts!

Case study of assimilation: Free Speech

There is this idea that black people have been indoctrinated and assimilated into the leftist political agenda. Thus, even though there are racial differences in political views, we should instead focus on political differences – because the political differences should be larger than the racial differences since political views proceed from political affiliation and not race. However, with regard to the issue of free speech, this simply is not true.

As this research from cato shows, racial disparities in views on free speech are vastly larger than differences in views on free speech between the average Democrat and the average Republican. Moreover, even among Democrats (who are more against free speech, as discussed in Democrats are Authoritarian), it appears that disparities in views on free speech between white democrats and nonwhite democrats are at least as large, if not greater, than disparities in views on free speech between republicans and democrats. In fact, it appears that if the Democrat party was purely composed of their white constituents, they would still be pro free speech, and they are only against free speech now because their constituents have stopped being white. I copied some statistics from this article to the end of this section to substantiate all of this.

Thus, we see that white Americans across the political isle have held true to their heritage since the revolutionary war of being free speech supporters. And African Americans – despite living here for over a century – have never been able to understand or value these philosophically beautiful western ideas. Thus, while conservative philosophers probably imagined that elite leftist white academics (who have mostly been the thought leaders of the Democrat party) taught the nonwhite masses to be against free speech, the reality is probably the opposite: these elite leftist white academics have been trying to reign in the crazy views of their nonwhite constituents so that they can accuse Republicans of being the ones who actually are against free speech.

As the Cato article discusses, black people support censorship because they perceive free speech as only helping the majority and think minorities need extra protection (which might seem silly seeing free speech is supposed to protect unpopular minority opinions, however, in the case of the blacks, they probably are correct: no doubt at least tens of thousands of posts have been banned online for discussing racial disparities in crime statistics, and this has helped the African American cause). This contrasts with the average views of white people – which is the enlightenment idea that we need free speech so that people can think for themselves. Or in other words, (on average) white people’s views are based on universal beautiful philosophical ideas, while black people are motivated by their specific ethnic interests. And this all relates to the fact that white people don’t see their race as being fundamental to their character, unlike black people (as the previous stat showed). [another relevant factor may be: people with lower IQs are less likely to support free speech.]

* I fear what I have said is inadequate and unpersuasive here.

This is to say that group affiliation plays a causal role in political affiliation – if someone is born with black skin, that will play a causal role in him having a greater interest in the black community, which will make him care more about black historical trauma as well as the issues that are particularly relevant to protecting Black people. Thus, skin color is not just “cosmetic” but actually has a causal effect on how people view the world and their political views (or at least it plays a role in how nonwhite people view the world). This isn’t a statement on how the world should be, but how it is. This means that even if a black father is persuaded to not believe the narrative of the left, his child will still be more likely to be drawn to care about left wing politics and black causes more than the child of a white father who similarly rejected the left’s narrative (this study proves this is true). Consequently, it sure seems like a liability to have high populations of people from ethnic groups which are biased towards the left.

I have a lot of graphics from this study copied below, but the above one is particularly funny: Apparently, the idea that it should be illegal to say offensive things about white people is more widely accepted by both Black people and Hispanics than it is to whites – showing how white people usually would be ashamed to explicitly try to benefit their race over others, while nonwhite people generally are totally fine with this (as shown, Hispanics want to protect Hispanics over Black people, and Black people want to protect themselves over Hispanics)(I suppose Black people being a few percentage points more likely to support free speech compared to Hispanics represents the sum total of over a century of work trying to assimilate Black people into our culture).

The conclusion: if we haven’t been able to teach African Americans really basic enlightenment principles such as freedom of speech despite them living here for over a century, I highly doubt we will have success elsewhere in assimilating immigrants to western values (yes there are exceptions – I am only speaking here of averages).

* fun fact: twin studies show that the heritability of political affiliation is over 50%, while shared environment has no impact (study 1, study 2).

* another fun fact: if you truly are pro free speech and are a realist, then you have to be against mass migration.

Facts from the Cato Article

“Similar majorities of Democrats (56%), independents (55%), and Republicans (54%) oppose requiring that student papers get permission before printing controversial stories. However, Democrats are divided along racial lines. More than two-thirds (68%) of white Democrats do not believe such permission should be necessary while 65% of black Democrats and 57% of Hispanic Democrats believe it should be.”

The Biden Amin Did Everything They Could to Help Illegal Immigrants

Since there are a lot of psychopathic democrats in the news who pretend like democrats are just as against illegal immigration as republicans, please allow me to present the facts:

The Numbers

Illegal border crossings have plummeted 90% since Trump returned to White House (nypost).

Preventing States from Detaining People

The Obama admin stopped Arizona from detaining illegal immigrants (pbs).
The Biden admin also stopped Texas from detaining illegal immigrants (texastribune).

Tearing Down Border Walls

In some parts of Eagle Pass, razor wire installed by Texas had been removed by the feds over 20 times – thus, the feds and Texas were locked in a cycle where the Texans installed razor wire, then feds removed it, over and over again (texastribune).
As soon as Biden reached office, he halted the construction of the border wall and sold for pennies on the dollar the pieces of the fence which were about to be installed in a bid to sabotage any further construction (brietbart, nypost).
Biden tore down border wall constructed in Arizona (nytimes).
The Biden admin ordered the removal of floating barrier in Rio grande river erected by Texas to deter illegal immigrants (theblaze).

Asylum Seekers

The normal way asylum seekers are handled internationally and before Biden came along was that once they entered a safe country, they were no longer considered asylum seekers anymore, and they are only allowed free reign in the asylum country once it is actually proven that they are refugees. This is because, obviously, once refugees escape to the first safe country, they no longer are in danger, and so if they continue on to different countries beyond that, their motive no longer is to find “safety” but rather to find the country with the most benefits.

The Biden admin reversed all of this: they allowed refugees to stay in America before their court cases actually came up, which usually had a four year backlog (tracreports), thus allowing anyone to stay in America for up to four years no questions asked. And they also allowed anyone to be considered an “asylum seeker” even if they arrived from countries that were already safe. The Biden admin even created a special app to help people pretend to be asylum seekers – the app didn’t have any requirements for who could enter their name into it – thus allowing anyone to migrate to the USA and stay here freely for the first 4 years before their court date. And of course, there was no guarantee said immigrants would actually show up to court, and for all we know they simply changed their identities with new submissions to the app once their date came.

This app was used to allow 900K migrants to enter our country (nypost).

As a result of this, anyone who illegally crossed our border could claim to be “asylum seekers” without needing to provide any sort of proof, and thus the roll of border patrol changed from deporting people to actually helping people cross and then releasing them further in the interior.

Refusal to Deport People

On his first day in office, Biden signed executive orders 1) implementing a hundred day moratorium on deportations, 2) allowed illegal immigrants to wait for their court cases while free to roam as they please in America rather than having to wait in Mexico for their court date, 3) ended the construction of the border wall, and other things to make it easier for illegal immigrants to sneak in here (cbs).
Biden border patrol released 900K illegal immigrants into the interior with orders to show up at court, rather than deporting them as they should have, just blindly pretending like the migrants would show up at court even though as said there was a several year backlog and no incentive for them to do so (amren).
So just to summarize, in the conflict at eagle’s pass, Texas ordered that nobody was allowed to enter the park, including ICE. They did this because, at the time, ICE was repeatedly cutting down all the razor wire installed there along the border, and ICE refused to deport anyone.

Incentives for Illegal Immigrants to Come Here

Illegal aliens gain free healthcare in California (nypost).
California gives illegal immigrants assistance in home purchases (nypost).
California provides in state tuition, scholarships, and scholarships to illegal aliens (pjmedia).
California provides food assistance to illegal aliens if they are mothers or if they are above age 55 (how would you know what age they are if they are illegal LOL)(calfresh, ilrc).
California provides cash assistance to certain illegal aliens (nytimes).
California gives illegal immigrants commercial driver licenses (theepochtimes).

Providing Assistance to Illegal Immigrants in their Journey to America

The feds installed ropes and cables to make it easier for migrants to cross the river (texastribune).
Democrats have weaponized to NGOs to assist illegal immigrants in their journeys to the USA to the tune of billions of dollars, training them on how to get here and providing assistance (source).
Democrat states have taken extraordinary steps to protect information of illegal immigrants from ICE (huffpost), and have even tried to establish ICE free zones (time).
Some jurisdictions in California are providing food and cash aide to help illegal immigrants hide from ICE (thegatewaypundit, offthepress).

The End Goal: Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Vote

Nearly every single democrat state doesn’t require ID to vote, and every single republican one does (ballotpedia).
California allows illegal immigrants to count votes (reform california).
Democrats push to make national law outlawing questioning whether it is legal for a person to vote – voter caging (cbs). Fun fact: when I was 14 years old, since I was a late bloomer I looked like I was years younger; nevertheless, seeing I had some classes at a community college, they allowed me to register to vote (I wanted to see if I could and they allowed it). I then asked them why they allowed me to register and they told me they weren’t allowed to question anyone looking to register (needless to say, I ended up destroying my registration).
DOJ Sues Virginia Over Enforcement of 2006 Law Removing Noncitizens from Voter Lists (breitbart), and went so far as to instruct Virginia to send letters to the illegal immigrants reassuring them they indeed are able to vote and provide training to poll workers instructing them to allow said illegals to vote (washingtontimes)[the pretense I think is that you aren’t supposed to remove voter registrations 90 days before an election].
It appears a great many illegal immigrants have voted (heritage, nypost, washingtontimes, thefederalist).

Immigrants Are Not Hard Working

Immigrants Are a Financial Burden

Immigrants from Third World Countries are Not Creative Geniuses

Refugees are Fake

Firstly (as many before me have said) any refugees that get to America or Europe must pass through many other countries which they could have stopped at. So, by the time they actually get to a country like the UK, they are no longer truly in need of refuge from their original country, but rather are choosing to live in whatever country offers them the best economy / highest benefits. So, the logic that we should be guilt tripped into letting in refugees is fake and dumb, especially considering that resettling refugees in western countries is vastly more impractical and costly than resettling them in countries more similar to their own:

Immigrants Disproportionately Commit Crime

Motivations

So why have we been lied to for decades about how awesome immigrants are? In my view, there are two reasons: Firstly, the rich understand that immigration lowers the wage – thus further enriching themselves. This is sort of a “looter” mindset, because the only end outcome of immigration is that the country will become much more socialist (as statistics show) – and thus it is as if the rich are trying to loot as much wealth from America before America collapses. Indeed, I believe the recent rise in income inequality in America is directly a result of immigration.

And secondly, because elements of our society want to radically transform our society to become much more leftist and so are trying to import voters in to do that. Here are some statistics:

Regarding Merit Based Immigration

As you saw in the above statistics, Asian Americans very much in favor of the government socializing companies, to a much greater degree than even democrats or black people. Moreover, in 2020, 72% of Indian Americans said they supported Biden, compared to just 22% for Trump (source). Thus, it sure seems even merit based migration needs to be reconsidered, given it seems like the only predictable outcome of the rise in Asian Americans is that America will move towards socialism (and the election of Mamdani proves this).

Yes, Asian Americans are smart, but if our only goal is make the average IQ of America go up, we don’t need to replace our people with another race who (on average) hate our values and will lead us towards destruction. All we need to do is stop third world immigration and deport people.

Ultimately, why do we even need foreigners? Americans already are very smart and industrious (despite the stereotypes saying other wise). In fact, white Americans score better in Pisa math tests than every single European country except Estonia and Switzerland (and I’m sure we have many states which are much bigger than those tiny countries that are more educated than they)(source)

Conclusion

Americans have by psychopathically lied to for years about immigration be “good”, and we have been disrespected and slandered for years about how we are lazy and need to be replaced. Well, that is all false, and all it does is show the true nature of leftism: Lies supported by censorship whenever they are called out, and replacing voters instead of engaging in honest conversation with them.