A “national origins” system refers to immigration limits set on a country-by-country on region-by-region basis. This was the pre-1965 system in a nutshell. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

In 1965, the immigration system which had been in place since the 1920s was in absolutely no need of adjustment or change of any kind and was doing quite well, thank you very much.

It got changed anyway, by Ted Kennedy and Emmanuel Celler. They changed it into the current system which was very carefully thought-out and skilfully crafted for the purpose of submerging the traditional white-Euro-Christian majority into a minority that would be completely at the mercy of incompatible ethnocultural groups. This was done partly because the existence of that traditional majority simply bothered some people — it annoyed and irritated certain people. That’s all.

The American people were never consulted. Every non-rigged public-opinion poll since then has shown large majorities to be against it. Those majorities are calculatedly, determinedly, brazenly ignored. The forces which originally conceived this plan desperately want overwhelming incompatible immigration to continue a few years longer, so that it will become politically irreversible. To that end they have made any discussion of it politically incorrect until such time as it will have become permanent, whereafter whites will be allowed to discuss it all they want, since there’ll be nothing they can do about it.

The intended victims of this stealth genocide (which is exactly what it is and what it’s been from the start) want this diabolical plan aborted as quickly as possible and the traditional ethnic balance and proportions restored to what they were in 1965.

That’s the position I favor: restoration of national origins criteria in immigration policy, and repatriation of those incompatibles already here (wherever the other side has deliberately brought them in in unacceptibly large numbers) by means of generous financial incentives satisfactory to all parties.

What was done in 1965 and thereafter, out of secret motives of stealth genocide, must be completely, one hundred percent undone — it’s as simple as that.

This FrontPageMag.com article very nicely sums up a large part of the problem: “The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster.” Check it out at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4991

Complete open borders… but FIRST, the complete abolition of state directed theft (known as ‘social security’), the end of tax funded educational conscription centres (state ‘schooling’) and all other theft based and violence enforced redistributive socialist systems operated by the state.

Then, if people come from abroad, they are not looking for handouts of other people’s money, they are looking for jobs and to become a source of wealth generation rather that a tax thief… and that benefits everyone.

But Perry, you never said what immigration set-up you preferred PENDING all those reforms you mentioned. Since they’ll be a long time in coming, it’s fair to ask you — no?

Perry de Havilland wrote: “Complete open borders… but FIRST, the complete abolition of state directed theft (known as ‘social security’), the end of tax funded educational conscription centres(state ‘schooling’) and all other theft based and violence enforced redistributive socialist systems operated by the state.”

The Rothbardian radical libertarians would make society helpless to protect itself from mass immigration until the society had FIRST undergone a radical libertarian Rothbardian revolution, and then such protection of the nation would only come from private landowners. The Rothbardians are about as helpful and relevant in the current situation as a bunch of Trotskyites, which some of them once were.

I voted for re-introducing a national origins system over reducing the numbers. This may seem an odd choice, but here’s my reasoning. The fundamental reality that drives the high level of immigration, including our inability to reduce the immigration, is its non-European racial content. The fact that the immigrants are overwhelmingly nonwhite makes it morally impossible for white Americans to criticize immigration, including non-racial aspects of immigration such as numbers and effect on social spending and population, since any criticism of immigration seems to be directed against nonwhites and is therefore racist.

Most immigration reformers believe we should just aim at drastically cutting the numbers of immigrants, and then we wouldn’t have to worry about the touchy issue of making distinctions between cultures and countries of origin. However, as long as the racial-guilt dynamic that I’ve described above remains in place, America will not have the moral will to cut down the numbers, even on a non-racial basis. Therefore, the only way to achieve true reform is to address first principles. The first principle of the 1965 Immigration Act was not an increase of numbers, it was the removal of all national discrimination from our immigration law. If we are ever to get control of immigration again, we must remove that principle. We must re-assert a national policy founded on the morality of discrimination, of rational discrimination based on immigrants’ cultural similarity to the historic culture of the United States.

The crisis we face proceeds from the liberal American ideology, incarnated in the 1965 Act, which says that all discrimination is wrong. We will ultimately not be able to save ourselves until, as a people, we reject that ideology.

Lawrence, you accurately name the causes for the immigration crisis and our inability to correct the ideological problems that fuel the fire. I am sorry to admit that, if anything I have learned about history is correct, then people will never change the policies simply because the principle is wrong. If you are right here, and the problem eventually reaches critical mass and the powder keg finally blows up in our faces, only then will any real action take place.

The prior postings aided my understanding how of the left got us into the immigration mess we now face and give impetus to my thoughts on where we go from here..
The Kennedy-Cellar changes were a sharp left turn away from our European roots and created an underclass of “victims” from which to draw political power for the one world schemes of the democrat-socialist-communist left.We defeated the communists only over every stumbling block put in Reagan’s way by the democrats. but the lefties keep on a-comin with dual purpose (one open,one hidden) programs, approaches and laws to topple the remainder of the male white European roots and experience that led to our republic.
Multiculturalism & Heterogeneity are just a polite way of watering down our population for better control by the one-worlder left-elitists.And waiting in the wings are the moslems,the ultimate one-worlders, who will carry the democrats banner of destrucive politics to its logical conclusion, world subjugation to Islam and the NEW NAZI “final solution”, elimation of Christian-Jewish -Buddhist based religion everywhere.

I would amend Sandy’s comments by pointing out that it’s not just the Left that is doing this. The Republican party and most conservatives either support the open immigration agenda or decline to say anything against it. So this is something much broader then leftism or liberalism per se. It is our whole civilization that is doing this—to itself. Unless that is understood, we have no chance of changing things, because we will always be attacking “the left,” while ignoring the fact that our fellow conservatives are doing the same thing.

I first realized this after I had written the first draft of my pamphlet The Path to National Suicide back in 1989 and gave it to several people for their feedback. One person, a liberal immigration restrictionist named Ed Levy, pointed out to me that I was only criticizing liberals, not conservatives, but that conservatives were just as much involved in the liberal immigration policy as the liberals. It was a crucially important point, but many conservatives still haven’t understood it.

Once it is understood that today’s “conservative” is for the most part just an earlier form of liberal, and that even what is referred to as the extreme right wing often has deep and unquestioned alliegences to fundamental liberal principles, the collusion between liberals and “conservatives” on immigration makes sense.

Solution: 1)CLOSE OUR BORDERS -hermetically- for a good ten years.

2) Kick out all illegal immigrants.

3) cut welfare, medicare, medicaid, taxes, HUD, and raise min. wage to $12 (so it pays for blacks and bums to work for their dope instead of relying on welfare)

4) try and execute war criminals such as the Clintons, Powell, Carter, Bronfmann, Bush (raped our borders and sold us to the arabs)

Down, I like #3. I think that, although your inference that all blacks to drugs is a little offensive, you propose that they at least work for the money. That is a primary conservative trait, providing opportunities to work rather than hand-me outs, and I am fully supportive f it.

I would like to hear more about Bush raping our borders and selling us to the arabs. I assume you are talking about Bush Sr., but no matter which Bush you are talking about I would like to hear the facts behind your claim. Not that I am challenging you, I am merely curious to learn more about so that I may decide how to feel about the issue.

Being conservative allows all manner and stripe of fellow travelers and extremists to be sheltered under the label and gets us all tarred by association.Calls for the execution of American politicians with whom we disagree; hyperbole to be sure, is wrongheaded and excessive sounding in print.

Nevertheless I liked DownWithLiberals’ expression, “raped our borders,” which I’d never heard before but am going to start using myself. Yes, Karl Rove and Pres. Bush certainly ARE raping our borders — they and Vicente Fox, Jorge Castañeda, Teddy Kennedy, Abe Foxman, and all the others have got a regular gang-bang going with what should be our sacred borders.

I also voted for re-introducing a national origins system. My purpose is the restoration of the pre-1965 European racial-cultural proportion of the population. It is natural and not immoral to prefer one’s own race and culture. Am I incorrect?

On the other hand, we could accelerate our work towards cloning a hermaphroditic (or sexless), racially pure being, which of course must be derived from equal amounts of genetic material from every individual. This would eliminate two differences that supposedly cause intolerable conflict: sex roles and race roles. While doing this, we could continue working toward eliminating differences in thinking such as different religions and different political ideas. We could work towards transferring our minds to a machine, which would permit us immortality and an ability to travel effortlessly (while turned off) at great speeds to far off galaxies, where we could assimilate nonconforming living and nonliving entities. This does seem the logical consequence of the ideas held by the left and right wings of liberalism. Am I incorrect?

I voted for National Origins specifically because to stop all immigration across the board is to treat all possible immigrants as equal. I think either approach would be helpful to our current situation, but given two effective policies the one that overtly repudiates the liberal equality myth is clearly the better one.