The Campaign to Third-Worldize the U.S.

It is said that there are three kinds of people. People who make things happen. People who watch things happen. And people who say, “What happened?”

Needless to say, those of the third kind are the least observant. And when it came to immigration, many conservatives were among the third kind—until the massive protests on America’s streets earlier this year by illegal aliens and their supporters. Now, most conservatives are pulling no punches in the fight against mass immigration, legal or illegal. It is about time. Yet, in a way, it is 40 years too late.

It was 40 years ago that liberals began their campaign to import Third World immigrants and create a permanent Democratic voting bloc. And they have succeeded. In every major election, the Third World immigrant vote for liberals has become a fait accompli. It is a safe bet that crocodiles eat vegetables more often than Third World immigrants vote for conservative candidates.  

Take the immigrant Hispanic vote, for instance. First, the overall Hispanic vote constitutes only about 6% of the U.S. electorate. Second, naturalized Hispanics comprise about 28% of the Hispanic vote. And third, in exit polls in 2004 only 27% of all Hispanic voters identified themselves as Republican.  

Those numbers distill down to this picture of the infinitesimally small percent of immigrant Hispanic Republicans:

In other words, out of every 1,000 U.S. voters, only about five are immigrant Hispanic Republicans.  

Nevertheless, some Republican activists make a big deal of Bush’s receipt of 40% of the overall Hispanic vote in 2004. But that amounted to only 2.4% of the total U.S. electorate. (To get that, he pandered to Hispanics ad nauseam, launching his pro-Hispanic and anti-conservative amnesty proposal in January 2004.)

In any case, let us revert to the subject at hand—the long-running liberal campaign to inundate America with Third World immigrants.

The Beginning

Until the 1960s, immigration to the U.S. was mostly based on a system derived from the percent of Americans having family origins in a given country. And there was an annual ceiling of 150,000 (immediate relatives of U.S. citizens were exempt, however). Because most Americans had family origins in Western Europe, most immigrant slots went to Western Europe. Of course, this produced a stream of immigrants who readily assimilated and helped perpetuate America’s historic and eupeptic Eurocentric culture—the great culture that founded the country in the first place.

That state of affairs was the liberals’ nemesis. And it fell victim to the eruptive egalitarianism of the 1960s, when the civil rights movement was in full swing. Many liberals began to act like vandals who set out to destroy a particular house, but once there, decide to destroy other houses just because those houses are in the same neighborhood.

They were after Jim Crow laws, but once there, decided to radically change immigration laws as well, even though most European immigrants of that time were hardly culpable for the plight of blacks in the South. In fact, Europe being historically more liberal than the U.S., Europeans often frowned on the segregation in the American South. There is no better illustration of this than the landmark exposé on the deprivations of blacks, “An American Dilemma,” published in 1944 by Gunnar Myrdal. Myrdal was a Swede. His book is widely considered the most influential work on U.S. race relations in the last century.

So in 1965 American liberals spearheaded a radical change in immigration law. They amended the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act in such a way that it straitjacketed immigration from Europe and unleashed immigration from elsewhere, and they nearly doubled the annual worldwide ceiling, from 150,000 to 290,000 immigrants. Thus began the liberal campaign to Third-Worldize the U.S.

Despite the claims by some of today’s liberals, it is not true that Third World immigration was racially outlawed until 1965. In fact, the 1952 Act expressly forbade any race-based debarments to naturalization, i.e., any person of any race could come here and naturalize. But strict limits kept Third World immigration under control. And rightly so. After all, the country simply did not want to import poverty.

Wrong, Utterly Wrong

In the 1965 Senate hearings that preceded the enactment of the revised law, a certain senator assured skeptics that the impending change would not significantly affect America’s culture or its ethnic composition, and that it would not bring a flood of Third World indigents. The senator’s remarks are well known to many an immigration researcher, but they are worth quoting here nevertheless:


First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia [i.e., Third World nations].

Who said that in 1965? Sen. Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts. Yes, the same man who is largely responsible for the amnesty bill that the Senate passed in May (but rightly ignored by the House). He has been in office since 1962.

The immigration system in place today is the product of further liberalization, by Kennedy and others, of the already-liberal 1965 revision. And any honest observer can see that the Massachusetts senator was not only wrong, but utterly and ridiculously wrong in his 1965 predictions. For instance:

  • Our country is indeed flooded with a million immigrants annually. In 2005, the number was 1,122,373. And those are who came legally. God only knows how many illegal aliens came.
  • America is indeed inundated with immigrants from the most populated and deprived nations. At least 75% of today’s immigrants are from the Third World. Nothing needs to be said about illegal aliens. 

Presented below is the average annual influx during each of the last five decades from the Third World, vis-à-vis from the Developed World, which includes Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.  

(Incidentally, that Japan has been in the Developed World for the last several decades is a problem for liberals; it confutes their claim that the conservatives’ opposition to Third World immigration is a device to oppose all non-white, non-European immigration.)

In the graph, you can clearly see how the ratio between immigration from the Developed World and the Third World was inverted, beginning in the 1960s. The 1950s were the last decade when the Developed World was preponderant in the immigrant influx.

Total immigrants from the Third World since 1965—more than 20 million. (Not counting illegal aliens.)

Needless to say, the high blue columns also signify high potential voters for Democrats. It is no secret that poor, unskilled immigrants support politicians who vote for social programs, and no one is more enamored of social programs than are Democrats. In contrast, the red columns, immigrants from civilized countries who are less likely to depend on government handouts, indicate the comparative paucity of immigrant voters for conservatives.

However, it is the use of Third World languages in America that best illustrates the cultural impact of immigration. Evidence from the 2000 census:

Third World Languages In U.S. Homes
Ten most common, and number of speakers

 Spanish  28 million
 Chinese  2 million
 Tagalog (Philippines)  1.2 million
 Vietnamese  1 million
 Korean  894,000
 Arabic     615,000
 Hindi (India)  317,000
 Persian  312,000
 Urdu (Pakistan, India)  263,000
 Gujarati (India)  236,000

Since Hispanics far outnumber any other group in immigration to the U.S., they have obviously been the largest beneficiaries of the 1965 overhaul. And virtually all Hispanic immigration is from the Third World. Thus, poverty among Hispanics in the U.S. is much higher than the U.S. national average:  

The same Republican activists who play up Bush’s Hispanic gains also play up the supposedly strong family values of Hispanics. But the facts tell a different story. For instance:

Despite the evidence of Third World immigrants’ poverty, dependence on social programs, and support for liberal Democrats, some Republicans such as John McCain, Arlen Specter, Bill Frist, etc. eagerly voted for the Senate’s “comprehensive” immigration bill in May—an amnesty bill which, if became law, would Third-Worldize the U.S. faster than any law enacted hitherto.

Evidently, some Republicans have become shameless accessories to what many liberals have long sought—a Third-Worldized America with a massive population of disaffected people who would eviscerate the country until its European heritage was no more.  

The Blunt Truth

Why would I, a Third World immigrant myself, who arrived more than 20 years ago as an impecunious and lone young man but made a life for myself in this great country, take this pejorative view of mass Third World immigration?  The simple answer: I do not want to see in America—my adopted homeland—the very conditions, cultural and political, that I escaped from in the first place.

In promoting Third World immigration, liberals claim that Third World cultures are no less valuable than the Eurocentric culture that founded America. Yet liberals have yet to explain: If those Third World cultures are so good, why do so many people want to come here? Why should Americans respect cultures that cannot even feed their own people? Of what value is a culture that only causes misery for its participants?

The trouble with most Third Worlders is that their ethnic pride is bigger than their intelligence. For instance, Mexican illegal aliens and their supporters proudly flew the Mexican flag during the immigration demonstrations earlier this year. If they are so proud of Mexico, why did they come here? Why did they leave Mexico if it is such a great place?

It is obvious that they and their supporters are incapable of such basic introspection. They ignore the contemptible conditions in Mexico that are the true cause of the Mexican misery, and they instead blame America, essentially for not having sufficient corruption in law to accept their illegal presence here.

Such muddled thinking is an ineluctable result of the immigration radicalization that liberals brought in 1965.

Enough is enough. The stance taken by the House Republicans—enforcement first—is conservatives’ last stand against mass immigration, both legal and illegal. To lose this stand is to lose America as we know it.

The border fence bill recently passed by the House and the Senate (and now awaiting the President’s signature) is only a small step. The bad news is that while we are taking small steps, the Third Worlders are taking big leaps—taking leaps over the southern border and producing leaps in population here. After all, it is Third World immigration that prematurely swelled America’s population past the 300 million mark just days ago.

How much more evidence do we need?