The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Aviva Chomsky Archive
Is Trump an Aberration?
The Dark History of the “Nation of Immigrants”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Liberal Americans like to think of Donald Trump as an aberration and believe that his idea of building a great wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent immigrants from entering the country goes against American values. After all, as Hillary Clinton says, “We are a nation of immigrants.” In certain ways, in terms of the grim history of this country, they couldn’t be more wrong.

Donald Trump may differ from other contemporary politicians in so openly stating his antipathy to immigrants of a certain sort. (He’s actually urged the opening of the country to more European immigrants.) Democrats like Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton sound so much less hateful and so much more tolerant. But the policies Trump is advocating, including that well-publicized wall and mass deportations, are really nothing new. They are the very policies initiated by Bill Clinton in the 1990s and — from border militarization to mass deportations — enthusiastically promoted by Barack Obama. The president is, in fact, responsible for raising such deportations to levels previously unknown in American history.

And were you to take a long look back into that very history, you would find that Trump’s open appeal to white fears of a future non-white majority, and his support of immigration policies aimed at racial whitening, are really nothing new either. The policies he’s promoting are, in an eerie way, a logical continuation of centuries of policymaking that sought to create a country of white people.

The first step in that process was to deport the indigenous population starting in the 1600s. Later, deportation policies started to focus on Mexicans — seen by many whites as practically indistinguishable from Indians. Except, white settlers found, Mexicans were more willing to work as wage laborers. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, Mexicans have been treated as disposable workers. As Europeans were invited to immigrate here permanently and become citizens, Mexican workers were invited into the country to work — but not to become citizens.

The particular legal rationales have changed over time, but the system has been surprisingly durable. Prior to the 1960s, deportation was based openly on discrimination against Mexicans on the basis of their supposed race or nationality. It was only with the civil rights advances of the 1960s that such discrimination became untenable — and new immigration restrictions created a fresh legal rationale for treating Mexican workers as deportable. Having redefined them as “illegal” or “undocumented,” nativists could now clamor for deportation without seeming openly racist.

Creating a Country for White People

A closer look at American history makes the notion that “we are a nation of immigrants” instantly darker than its proponents imagine. As a start, what could the very idea of a “nation of immigrants” mean in a land that was already home to a large native population when European immigrants started to colonize it? From its first moments, American history has, in fact, been a history of deportation. The initial deportees from the British colonies and the American nation were, of course, Native Americans, removed from their villages, farms, and hunting grounds through legalized and extra-legal force everywhere that white immigrants wanted to settle.

The deportations that began in the 1600s continued at least until the end of the nineteenth century. In other words, to celebrate the country’s “immigrant” origins also means celebrating the settler colonialism and native displacement that made the United States that nation of immigrants — and this has important implications for immigrants today, many of whom are indigenous people from Mexico and Central America.

Conflicts between immigrants and Natives were central to the colonial histories of both North and South America, and to the American Revolution. In the Proclamation of 1763, the British attempted to mitigate such conflicts by banning colonist (that is, immigrant) encroachment on native lands west of the Appalachian Divide. The British Crown even restricted immigration itself in another fruitless attempt to balance native and settler interests. These prohibitions were among the major grievances that led to the American Revolution.

Among the list of “injuries and usurpations” carried out by the King that were denounced in the Declaration of Independence, there was the fact that he had “endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” In addition, he had, it claimed, “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Along with its commitment to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” that document couldn’t have been clearer that the new country would also be committed to a settler colonial project of populating the land with white immigrants and getting rid of the natives. Put another way, deportation was written into the American DNA from the get-go and, put in election 2016 terms, the new country was, from the beginning, designed as an explicitly racist project to populate the land with white people. Perhaps this is what Donald Trump means with his now iconic slogan “Make America Great Again!”

Legislating Citizenship

Nor did this commitment to white supremacy through immigration change during the initial century of U.S. history. The first Naturalization Act of 1790 encouraged white immigration by basing citizenship on race and offering it liberally to immigrants — defined as white Europeans — who were in this way made the privileged constituency of a new nation that had a slave system at its heart. (Although southern and eastern Europeans would face social prejudice in the United States, immigration and citizenship law always placed them in the “white” category.)

It was not until 1868, three years after the Civil War ended, that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution created the right to citizenship by birth, making it possible for the first time for non-whites to become citizens. But when Congress passed that amendment, it had in mind only some non-whites: previously enslaved Africans and their descendants. Here’s the crucial line in which Congress made sure of that: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Since Native Americans were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, they were excluded from citizenship by birth.

The new racial boundaries of citizenship were further clarified in 1870 when Congress amended the Naturalization Act by officially allowing, for the first time, some non-citizens of color to obtain citizenship: it extended naturalization rights to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” On paper, this looked like a move away from white supremacy. In the context of the United States at that moment, however, it was something else. It ensured that Native Americans, already excluded from citizenship by birth, would also be barred from obtaining citizenship through naturalization. As for those theoretical “aliens of African nativity” who might be entering the country and seeking citizenship through naturalization, there were virtually none. In the aftermath of hundreds of years of enslavement and forced transport, it would be many decades before any Africans could imagine the United States as a land of opportunity or a place to make a better life.

And the new Naturalization Act just as explicitly excluded lots of people who were in fact migrating to the United States in significant numbers in the 1870s. If you were European, you were, of course, still quite welcome to become a citizen. However, if you were, for example, Mexican or Chinese, while you were still welcome to come and work, you weren’t an “immigrant,” since you couldn’t become a citizen. Hence, the United States continued to be a “nation of immigrants” — but only of a specific sort.

Legislating Immigration

Citizenship by birth, however, opened a Pandora’s box. Anybody physically present in the country (except Native Americans) could obtain citizenship for his or her children by virtue of birth. Chinese adults might be prohibited from naturalizing, but their children would be both “racially ineligible to citizenship” and citizens by birth — a logical impossibility.

Once citizenship by birth had been established, Congress moved to preserve the white racial character of the country by restricting the entry of non-whites — first with the Page Act of 1875, prohibiting Chinese women from entering the country, then with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That ban was, in turn, gradually expanded until, in 1917, the “Asiatic Barred Zone” was put in place. It would span significant parts of the globe, from Afghanistan to the islands of the Pacific, and encompass about half of the world’s population. Its purpose was to ensure that, all “Asians” being “aliens ineligible to citizenship,” none of them would enter the U.S., and so their racially ineligible children would never be born here and obtain citizenship by birth.

Students of immigration history generally learn about the 1921 and 1924 quotas that, for the first time, placed restrictions on European immigration. Indeed, for about four decades in the mid-twentieth century, the United States ranked Europeans by their “racial” desirability and offered differential quotas to reduce the numbers of those less desired (southern and eastern Europeans in particular) entering the country.

But while all these restrictions were being implemented, Congress did absolutely nothing to try to stop Mexican migration. Mexican labor was desperately needed for the railroads, mines, construction, and farming that followed in the wake of white settler colonialism and the displacement of Native Americans in the West. In fact, after Chinese immigration was banned, Mexican workers became even more necessary. And Mexicans had an advantage over the Chinese: they were easier to deport across the long southern border. Many, in fact, preferred to maintain their homes in Mexico and engage in short-term migration to seasonal, temporary jobs. So Mexicans were welcomed — just not as immigrants or potential citizens. Rather, they were seen as eminently deportable, temporary workers.

In this way, a revolving door of recruitment and deportation came to define Mexican migration to the United States. At some points this system was formalized into bracero or “guest-worker” programs, as happened between 1917 and 1922, and again from 1942 to 1964. And nativists could sometimes mobilize anti-Mexican sentiment of a Trumpian sort to justify mass deportations — like those in the 1930s and again in 1954 — that would only reinforce the inherent and public tenuousness of the Mexican presence in the United States.

The “Nation of Immigrants” Today

The formal bracero program was phased out after 1964, but the pattern of recruitment and deportation of Mexican workers has continued to this day. The supposedly liberal, immigrant-friendly President Obama actually implemented quotas that have pushed the Department of Homeland Security to oversee hundreds of thousands of deportations yearly. Most of those deported are Mexican — not exactly surprisingly, since the legal apparatus was designed for just that purpose. The only thing that’s new is the stated rationale: now they have been assigned a status — “undocumented” — that justifies their deportation.

Events in the 1960s, including the ending of the bracero program and the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, made changes that began to treat all countries, including Mexico, the same way. Instead of large numbers of guest-worker visas, Mexico would receive a small number of immigrant visas. But Mexico’s migrant history and its reality were completely different from those of other countries. Given how dependent both countries had become on Mexicans migrating north to work, the stream of workers heading north continued despite changes in the law. The only difference: now this was “illegal.”

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized millions of Mexicans already in the country without legal status and also began the trend towards the militarization and control of the border. Paradoxically enough, this only increased the undocumented population, because those who made it across that border were increasingly afraid to leave for fear they wouldn’t make it back the next year.

Meanwhile, civil wars in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s, and subsequent neoliberal reforms and violence, as well as the impact similar neoliberal reforms and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, had on Mexico’s economy in those same decades led to significant increases in authorized and unauthorized immigration. As a result, there was a significant increase in the U.S. Latino population — as citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary legal residents, and unauthorized residents. But the longstanding national sentiment that Donald Trump is now mobilizing, the belief that somehow Mexicans are alien to the nature of the United States, continues, as does a sub rosa desire for a whiter America.

Something else of interest happened to Mexican and Central American migration during these years. As in the United States, indigenous people in these countries have tended to be the poorest, most marginalized, most exploited sectors of the population. As a result, the violence and the socio-economic changes of the 1980s and 1990s disproportionately afflicted them, which meant ever more indigenous people from those countries entering the migrant stream.

By 2010, 174,494 people chose “Mexican American Indian” as their tribal affiliation on the U.S. census, making them the fourth largest group of Native Americans, after the Navajo, the Cherokee, and the Choctaw. It’s not clear from the census data how many of these were recent immigrants rather than long-term residents, and how many were undocumented. But as the website ThinkMexican commented, “It directly challenges Manifest Destiny, the white supremacist narrative used to justify Western expansion, and the genocide of Native Peoples. The message is clear: This land is still Native.” And another message is clear too: the United States is still deporting native people.

Aviva Chomsky is professor of history and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts and a TomDispatch regular. Her most recent book is Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Immigration 
Hide 96 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. woodNfish says:

    This article is nothing more than a load of psychobabble and bullshit. There is nothing racist about deporting illegals. These people are mexicans, salvadorans, brazilians, etc. – all nationalities, not race. They are also criminals. The first thing they did by coming here was break our laws on illegal entry.

    Chomsky is just another whining commie globalist who can’t handle the fact that we have a legal border and the USA is a sovereign nation. She’s as shit-brained as her father.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  2. peterike says:

    Oh gosh, just IMAGINE creating a country meant for your own people! Why…. I can’t EVEN. How DARE anyone think that? Reprehensible. Deplorable.

    Oh, how’s the shopping in Tel Aviv these days, Aviva?

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @TheBoom
  3. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The very phrase “nation of immigrants” is a loaded term and historically quite misleading. A nation of settlers is far more accurate. Actually a nation of the descendants of settlers even more so.

  4. utu says:

    “The British Crown even restricted immigration itself in another fruitless attempt to balance native and settler interests. These prohibitions were among the major grievances that led to the American Revolution.” – In particular this applies to George Washington who had insatiable greed for the land intended to be left to Indians.

    • Replies: @artichoke
    , @syonredux
  5. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Exactly. Why wouldn’t and why shouldn’t white people want to create a country for white people instead of for Chinese people, brown people, etc..

    Jewish people were never troubled by creating a Jewish country for Jews in Israel.

    • Replies: @TheJester
  6. Superman says:

    It’s funny how the whiter a neighborhood, city, or nation is, the more that non-whites clamor to live there. And yet somehow whiteness is considered to be a bad thing.

    • Replies: @boogerbently
  7. Zeebra says:

    I echo the sentiments of some of the other op edders below in that I just don’t understand what white people are supposed to do in your mind? Not to mention, what is it that you think that the indians and africans and mestizos and all of the other victims of white people would do, if only they had the ability?? I’m sure growing up in Cambridge its much easier to imagine as American blacks and mestizos as the perennial “poor little victims” of the big bad white man. For those of us who have lived up close and personal with blacks et al, fist-fought with them in our youth, been scammed or cheated by em, robbed or harassed and got a little more in the rough and tumble that is LIFE, the world doesn’t shake out as simple as that. Look out for your own, that’s what I say! Life won’t be fun for anyone if whites are out of the majority, but especially for whites.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  8. LouSurfer says:

    “By 2010, 174,494 people chose “Mexican American Indian” as their tribal affiliation on the U.S. census, making them the fourth largest group of Native Americans, after the Navajo, the Cherokee, and the Choctaw.”

    What huge numbers!!

    That doesn’t even amount to a suburb of a medium sized city.

    Your point was?

  9. I see that in our country today it is taboo to talk about deportation of illegals, a la Trump, but to actually do it in the greatest numbers of any president a la Obama and Hillary is just fine. Ditto, talk of wall building bad, but adding walls to the extent of 500 miles already in place, again a la Obama and Hillary is just fine. Do anything USA, but don’t talk about it. That’s not nice.

  10. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    The Chinese Exclusion Act was a wonderfull policy that protected Native Born White American Workers and kept America 90 percent majority White…..MAGA!!!!

    We can thank two Socialist labor leaders Dennis Kearney and Samuel Gompers for the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    Perhaps someone can paste Samuel Gompers’ congressional testimony in here in favor of the Chinese Exclusion Act…

    Oh yeah…Noam Chomsky does not support the right of return for Palestinians….because of would of it’s demographic consequences for Jewish Israel.

    Noam Chomsly and Aviva Chomsky harbor genocidal demographic intent towards The Historic Native Born White Christian Majority….without a doubt…

    Anti-war Noam Chomsky….voting for Hillary Clinton….

    • Replies: @anon
  11. My people on my fathers side came here from Norway to take advantage of the homestead act. The first one to arrive got as far as Illinois when he was conscripted into the Union army. Most of him survived the war the exception being his left leg below the knee. He managed to settle on what had been Indian land in South Dakota and was blessed with many sons and daughters. He never killed any Indians. He never owned any slaves. But he was the same color as men who had done these things, as am I.

    I am aware that many people who are neither white nor male blame me for their troubles. That’s fine with me if it makes them feel better. But self hating whites are another matter. They are tools of the common enemy of all races and genders – the .01%. They want to recruit me into their perverse identity politics.

    Identity Politics = Totalitarianism

    • Replies: @Fatherfish
    , @Anon
    , @IA
  12. “He’s actually urged the opening of the country to more European immigrants.”

    This might even become a necessity as the onslaught of invaders from the third world turns today’s Ethnic Europeans into tomorrow’s refugees.

  13. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:


    Post-1965…there was no justification for importing even one Asian Legal Immigrant.

    There are no economic and demographic reasons for importing Asian Legal Immigrants onto Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space.

    A very severe labor scarcity must never be used as an excuse to race-replace The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    The very greedy Chomsky Family has open genocidal intent towards the Native Born White American Working Class.

  14. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Fat Greedy Aviva Chomsky…

    An ugly pig to boot!!….

    Gorging herself on the weekends…

    On the Chomsky Family Estate

    On Wellsfleet Cape Code Cod….hey doesn’t Cape Code belong belong to the Peqout Injuns..Aviva…you fat ugly greedy pig!!!!…..down the road from the Dershowitz Estate…

    • LOL: artichoke
  15. artichoke says:

    Chomsky is a leftist, and what she sees as dark, I may see as light.

    But she’s right, Reagan was one of the worst. He legalized a bunch of people who were no more entitled to legalization than our current crop of illegals. LBJ, Carter, Clinton — none of them did that. Reagan did.

    But I don’t think Trump is another Reagan. He’s an older type, back to the time when America was growing. Reagan just steered the decline into decadence.

  16. artichoke says:

    Well yes, it took a great spirit to kick out those English divide-and-conquer meddlers.

  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    And Peter Brimelow worships Ronnie Reagan….to this day….

  18. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    What Leftists and Libertarians mean when the shriek like girls:”THAT’S DIVIDE AND CONQUER” is this:Bill Gates shall continue to get a massive Asian scab labor subsidy….and the minority Native Born White American population in post-white toilet “America” has no choice but to put their fate completely in the hands of hostile and highly racialized Han People and Hindu Brahmans….

    As an Alt Righter…I prefer the mathematical operation of subtraction….-…subtract the Chinese…Korean…Hindu…Pakistani…fifth columns back to China…Korea…India….Pakistan…were they can be happily among their own racial kind…

  19. fnn says:

    “nation of immigrants”

    A psy-ops term invented by the ADL. meant to subvert the Anglo-Saxon basis of the founding of American nation and obscure the distinction between pioneers and immigrants.

  20. With all respect to Professor Chomsky, the United States was always intended to be a nation of, by and for white Europeans, period. It never occurred to the Founding Fathers that the current disastrous situation of the country could possibly come about. If they had imagined it they would have made it quite clear that condoning or encouraging or allowing non-white immigration would be treason, punishable by death. This is quite explicit in all early documents. Alarm over the growing numbers of black slaves led to a provision to ban the Atlantic slave trade. Indians were quite clearly regarded as not part of the nation. As for Muslims or Asians, even the thought that they might become American citizens would have been considered absurd, if not insane. This does not mean that such people might not, as individuals, be welcome parts of the community providing they did not increase in numbers as to become a problem. Voting, office-holding citizens? No, never. This was not bigotry or racism. it was common sense and a policy generally adhered to by every successful nation on earth.

  21. Not mentioned in the bio at the bottom of the article is the fact that its author is the daughter of Noam Chomsky.

    This is our country. We own it. People who enter without our permission are trespassing. The are breaking our laws. Therefore they are illegally here.

    Simple logic ignored by someone who has her megaphone only because of who her father is.

  22. Many (most?) whites in America are descendants of European peasantry, and immigrated in the beginning of the 20th century. Whereas plenty of the Hispanics trying to illegally cross the border are the descendants of the even more ruthless Spanish colonizers.
    Are white Americans supposed to feel guilt towards them because of hair color? Or how is any of this relevant in practice?

    Even so, that’s beside the point. The reason people oppose mass immigration is because it destabilizes society, drains public funds and increases crime. That’s empirical knowledge.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @artichoke
  23. Fatherfish says: • Website

    My ancestors came to this land to settle on the sores of the Chesapeake Bay. Since the 1600’s we have been natives of this land living where no one had lived before.

    • Replies: @dahoit
  24. fnn says:

    On The Chinese Exclusion Act:


    Steve Sailer
    ‏@Steve_Sailer Steve Sailer Retweeted Jeff Jacoby
    That 1800s Americans delayed California from becoming an outpost of Asia seems like something we should celebrate.

  25. @artichoke

    Reagan made an unwise compromise to hold together his coalition. He traded legalization for future enforcement– two birds in the bush. Note that he expressed his misgivings at the time. It’s almost as if he’d flipped a coin.

    Reagan’s mistake is understandable- worker’s advocate Tip O’Neill’s betrayal is not.

    Reagan admitted he blew it on two earlier compromises as governor– signing no-fault divorce and abortion liberalization (not legalization) bills. I hope nobody here is stupid and backward enough to support no-fault divorce or liberalized abortion!

    There is good reason to believe he would have realized he was the victim of a bait-and-switch on this issue as well, had he not aged out of his faculties.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  26. Jason Liu says:

    Liberal democracy is an aberration. By their standards, every society up to recent times was ruled by a fascist strongman. An pharaoh, a Caesar, an emperor, a king, etc.

    From what I’ve seen of western societies, liberal democracy is not an improvement at all. Quite the opposite.

  27. This article must be regarded as pro a mass murderer ‘feminist’, zinofascist and slave of Zionist jews, killary Killinton. Don’t pay attention to imposter ‘intellectuals’.

    Your imposter father is supporting a ziocon, Killary like many Jewish neocon. It not necessary to come and use ‘immigration’ as an excuse to attack Trump in order to fool people voting for a mass murderer and proven Zionist Jews’ slave. Your father, a closet Zionist, has already done that and bought people’s anger .

    Noam Chomsky is asking dummies to vote for a war criminal, baby killer, a zionfascist and racist who happens to be a ‘feminist’ like aviva.

    NO one benefited from all these wars, killings and mass refuge except ziofacists, Israel and their phony ‘public intellectuals’ – Noam Chomsky a Zionist and Israel supporter.

    You instead, should ask Israel and US get out of the region now.

  28. Che Guava says:


    The name sounds like a joke, on the order of ‘Areeba, areeba’, or ‘Va va voom’.

    Wonder why her parents chose it? Perhaps it means something else in ‘ebrew.

    I will try to track down a photo, after the O.P. implying that she is grossly obese. Her writing sure sucks.

    I find it a little strange that most Unz commenters seem to dislike American Indians (as opposed to Indian Americans), I used to buy an English-language paper that reprinted NYT stuff under their International Herald Tribune guise.

    Just before I stopped buying it, because its only effect on me was rage at the constant lies, I was astonished to see an article gushing with praise for Indians in America.

    Of course, the article was about immigrants from the sub-continent in Asia. I think that may have been the precise day I stopped buying that former publication altogether, at least within a week, total boycott.

    Why do so many here hate American Indians from the tribes who formerly held the land?

    From my view from afar, and from conversation with a southern (as in former CSA) gentleman, mainly of Indian descent, I gather most of the Indians are much like redneck whites or very socially conservative.

    The South had allied tribes, the North did not.

    Sure, they don’t make much of a voting bloc now, but my impression is that people are automatically too dismissive.

    They don’t like current mass immigration to your country, either.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Usual garbage from a Jew who despises euro americans as well as all dark skins. Suffice to spend 2 hours in Israel to witness the appartheid and institutionalized racism.
    Why doesn’t the author move there?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  30. dahoit says:

    The minute my Great great ….grandpappy Barnabas Horton stepped off the boat,in 1635,in Southold LI NY,(where he was neighbors with my previous Dutch ancestors)he entered a multiracial society.And the importation of slaves further re-enforced that reality.The Delaware Indians certainly were also there before your white ancestors,and many many Americans have native injun blood,as I do.I am a proud American mutt,as mutts make the best people.
    Give the divide and conquer shite,like this Chomsky crap,a rest.

  31. Rehmat says:

    European invaders who came along with Christopher Columbus – all wanted White immigration to replace the natives as Israeli Jews are doing since 1948.

    This has one benefit – no one will call American racists against fellow White Judeo-Christians. However, the reason the America and the rest of western nations opened their doors to non-White immigrants was for CHEAP LABOR. Now, since most of welfare recipients and homeless are Whites – the White Supremacists and anti-Muslim thugs want to ban immigration from non-White countries.

    Ironically, these WEST FOR WHITES hypocrites did not cry when Britain rejected 80% of White applicants who wanted to immigrate to UK from African-ruled South Africa.

    Helen Thomas could have been a good adviser to Donald Trump on how to get rid of Muslims – exchange American Muslims with Israel’s European Jews.

  32. “The policies he’s promoting are, in an eerie way, a logical continuation of centuries of policymaking that sought to create a country of white people.”

    Yes, this is correct. Only a very odd person whose understanding of human history was strange would find this statement offensive. Perhaps Ms. Chomsky has a different interpretation of Israel’s immigration policy.

  33. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    to take advantage of the homestead act.

    Who did that land belong to before it was offered in the homestead act? how was it acquired?

    • Replies: @anon
  34. @Westernerer

    Your last paragraph doesn’t have to be true. Australia is suffering none of those downsides despite having run proportionately the biggrst immigration intake in the world for many years. But we don’t have the descendants of slaves and we do control our borders effectively (again after some leftwing/Green/stupid backsliding).

  35. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Funny how Chinese have always felt the ‘right’ to move to America and Canada because there were Indians living in some of its areas before whites arrived, but don’t seem to have the same right to move to Mexico, Peru, or anywhere else in the Americas.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  36. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Belonged to nobody. America was largely unsettled at the time. Even the areas where there were Indian populations, were mostly nomadic.

  37. anon • Disclaimer says:

    This entire article is just pure Jewish cultural Marxism, the false ideology that has been used to allow the disastrous arrival of non-whites to western countries.

  38. @Reg Cæsar

    What’s the argument against abortion goven that the rich and well organised will always be able to arrange it leaving the hopeleasly stupid to do the nation’s unneeded breeding. Maybe you think there is a deity who cares about us and likes lots of babies

    And what would be the consequence of not having easy divorce? Even fewer marriages? More children born out of wedlock? More domestic violence?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  39. @Anonymous

    I didn’t see anythig like that in Tel Aviv in a couple of days there though I did read about a riot by Falasha Jews…

  40. @Che Guava

    Over here, it’s what the Norwich Union/Commercial & General rebranded itself as after gobbling up some other insurance companies, including the venerable RAC. And it occurs in no other context.

    In April 2002 the company’s shareholders voted to change the company name to “Aviva plc”, an invented word …

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  41. @anon

    I’ve never heard this. Source?

  42. Che Guava says:
    @Expletive Deleted

    Witty reply, thx.

    I forgot abt. the name of the insurance company.

    Still, why did her parents give her that name?

    Did she adopt it?

    Sure irritating either way.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
  43. nsa says:

    More self-serving jooie hooey……..

  44. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] says:

    UCLA Professor Emeritus Robert McGrath wrote a very interesting essay about the Chinese Exclusion Act over at Chronicles Magazine three years ago.

    The Pakistani Muslim “Americans” want to bash Whitey over the head with the sob story about the American Injuns…so they can vote Whitey into a racial minority in post-White “America”..and then quickly flush their crocodile tears-sob story about the American Injun down the toilet bowl and enjoy the benefits of a territory conquered and colonized by Europeans.

    No the Alt Right doesn’t hate the American Injun….but the American Injuns are being used by the Chinese…Koreans….Hindus….Sihks…and Pakistani Muslims in our America to beat Whitey over the head…for their own predatory racial interests.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
  45. Old business. All human habitation of the Western Hemisphere was a consequence of migration from through Beringia during the Late Paleolithic from southern and eastern Siberia and possibly across the Pacific from Polynesia (as recent research has suggested) . The “Native Americans” were no more “native” than my German and Irish emigre’ parents who left their respective homelands in the late 20s.

  46. Mark Green says: • Website

    What a deeply dishonest article. I’m very glad that UNZ published it and that it has the name ‘Chomsky’ attached to it. Shalom, Aviva.

  47. TheJester says:

    Ideology can overcome the Law of Noncontradiction. It goes something like this: Jews are an”exceptional people” … which means there are exceptions reserved for Jews and no one else. Jews can engage in ethnic cleansing to carve out a country exclusively for themselves (Ashkenazi Jews that is) but no other peoples can do so.

    Please trolls, before you remind me that there are Sephardic Jews and a few other racial minorities in Israel, the Ashkenazi Jews don’t want them any more than we want Somalian goat herders in the United States. When Israel was founded, recall the Ashkenazi practice of stealing children from Sephardic Jews and other nationalities to “Europeanize” them; that is, get rid of their Arabic cultural legacies that the Ashkenazi considered inferior and threatening.

  48. IA says:

    They want to recruit me into their perverse identity politics.

    No one will ever win the battle of the sexes because there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. Beautiful women do not sleep with ugly, poor men. Territory, land, real estate are like a woman. The more desirable the more it costs. Conflict is built into our DNA.

  49. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Governor Jessie Ventura

    Somalian Muslim Gang Rape Army conquers Scadanavian Minnesota

    Greedy Narcissistic Cockroach…

  50. I agree with the left that whites should be resettled back to Europe where they belong and the land given back to the Indians.It would have to be voluntary that everyone goes back to where they belong. I wonder how that would work out and if any will leave. Just imagine how much land the Indians would have if we all weren’t on it. It’s one thing the Jews Blacks Muslims Mexicans Socialists Commies or other never suggest, is that they leave too.I guess it’s mostly based on color or just not being white or Amish that they think is their commonality with the Native Tribes of America and that’s why they shouldn’t have to go, due to their non-whiteness, which makes them like instant brothers with the other non-white tribes of America.

    Then they could all vacate Europe as well. I doubt I would have much trouble resettling with my own people in Europe. Don’t forget to leave the Indians land the way it was originally found.

  51. @Che Guava

    “.. why did her parents give her that name? “
    Because it can’t be much fun going through life as “Jaffa”? So they took the descriptive part of the rebranded name of that truly ancient city, as people have surmised, and added some sort of (latinate?) feminine ending.

    History, Winston. Control the words, and the memories …

    • Agree: Che Guava
  52. @War for Blair Mountain

    Time to start shipping them Winchesters to the Injins at last? Let them fight off all interlopers, seconds out, may the best tribe win.

  53. laura r says:

    mexico is in process of building a huge wall on their southern border. the US is giving 15 million in aid. if trump contributed to this project he could win the election hands down. btw, mexico is referred to as a “pass through” for central americans on way to US. if they are in mex more than 3 days they get arrested & sent back. mexico is very cruel to those who do not have visas. the cartels bring them across the border, all this is arranged through the 3 governments. can someone here write an artical?

  54. syonredux says:

    In particular this applies to George Washington who had insatiable greed for the land intended to be left to Indians.

    Anglo vs Amerind, dear fellow. Since I’m Anglo, I always take the Anglo side.

    • Replies: @utu
  55. syonredux says:

    Creating a Country for White People

    Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

    And the Israelis certainly seem to agree. After all, they created a country for Jewish people….

    • Replies: @Wally
  56. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    One of the causes of the ‘Great Migration’ of Southern Blacks to Northern Cities was labor shortages which created relatively high wage, low skilled jobs. Those jobs would have gone to European immigrants — but we eliminated it.

    And now? Mexicans are displacing blacks in Chicago. And many cities, which is one reason for the reduction in urban crime over the last few decades.

    I don’t know the moral of this story. Labor was right about the impact of immigration on wages. But they didn’t anticipate intra country migrations.

  57. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I just don’t understand what white people are supposed to do in your mind?

    Commit racial and cultural suicide, obviously, by a combination of (a) self-sterilization by such progressive measures as partial birth abortion, no-fault divorce, and most importantly, teaching kids that reproducing their own kind is the only sexual vice; (b) mass replacement immigration; and (c) clasping to our bosom those who hate us.

    The Germans are doing it thanks to St. Angie, the Brits are doing it, thanks to the Traitors, Blair, Brown, and Cameron, so why are there so many miserable white American racists, haters — you know— xenophobes, and Islamophobes — who won’t do it?

    Com’n white Americans, off yerselves and make way for a new electorate more amenable to the needs of the Bush/Clinton/Obama triopoly and the Money Power masters.

    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
  58. Svigor says:

    Welcome to Projection City.

    Someone should write an algorithm. 99% of Jewish writing on the subject is ideologically indistinguishable, with only the words arranged differently. The algorithm could spit out a Jewish name to attach to the same boring ideas they’ve been regurgitating for a century and more.

    Would save the media oligarchs a lot of money.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  59. Svigor says:

    Donald Trump may differ from other contemporary politicians in so openly stating his antipathy to immigrants of a certain sort.

    True. Most politicians are bought and paid for by the oligarch class (heavily Jewish), and so they would never openly state their antipathy for rapist immigrants, drug-dealing immigrants, etc.

    Americans in general hate rapists and drug-dealers, even the immigrant kind, so they agree with Trump. The oligarch class, on the other hand…

  60. Svigor says:

    Ideology can overcome the Law of Noncontradiction. It goes something like this: Jews are an”exceptional people”

    Right. It’s called “special pleading,” it’s a well-known category of bullshit.

    “Assume Jews are God’s Chosen People, superior to mere human beings…”

    I agree with the left that whites should be resettled back to Europe where they belong and the land given back to the Indians.It would have to be voluntary that everyone goes back to where they belong. I wonder how that would work out and if any will leave. Just imagine how much land the Indians would have if we all weren’t on it. It’s one thing the Jews Blacks Muslims Mexicans Socialists Commies or other never suggest, is that they leave too.

    Well, we agree on one thing: you should leave (or, are you playing the game with someone else’s money?).

    The Indians didn’t own the land, so much as they roamed it. It was inevitable that some more advanced civilization would come and tame the land, and build a civilization on it. If it hadn’t been the Brits, it would have been the Russians (I’m sure they would have been very gentle with the Indians), or the Chinese, or whoever.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Might makes right, or, at least, will makes things possible.

    There are a lot of people in Tel Aviv who want to stay among their own kind, and not among other kinds of people. They strongly will it, so there’s a good chance it can be as they will it to.

    Blaming a Jew in the USA for their wish and will to undo the ethnic-nationalist fabric of the country is like blaming Palestinians and Arabs who wish and will to turn Israel into a democracy that no longer supports legally sanctioned racism. Would you blame them?

    Conversely, blaming American non-Jewish Whites for the ease they get all minorities walk over them with (and, sometimes, pride and pleasure) is consistent with praising Jews in Israel.

    Shooting stars are commoner than objective comments on ethnic and national matters in the USA and Israel. You only see people who reason in opposite ways as it comes to one side and the other.

    Personally, I blame the non-Jewish Whites of European descent in America, and I don’t blame the Jews in Israel.
    It is willpower what makes ethnic groups have it their way. Blaming Jews because non-Jewish Whites are psychologically dead bodies devoid of any will is pretentious.

    Nietzsche: “I call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its instincts, when it prefers what is injurious to it.”

    Susan Sontag said the White race was (not “had been”, but “was”) the cancer of the world, and she said it in New York, and could keep living in New York untroubled after that.
    I don’t know, but it’s likely some or many columns appeared in magazines in the aftermath expressing agreement.
    Who do we blame for that, Miss Sontag? I don’t think so.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s less than 99%, especially among their youth, more and more are liberals in good faith and not in a stricly selfish way any more.

    When Mario Cuomo tweetted that “if you support BDS, NY state boycotts you” more than 50% of commenters slamming the outrageous illegality of the act were Jewish.
    Granted, these people hold no position of power in Zionist/Marxist/anti-White hate organizations like the ADL, SPLC and so on, nor they have a column on the WaPo or NYT or a program on MSNBC.

    Google “young jews support bds”, or “Naturei Karta International” and see yourself.

    Anyway, the existential problems of the West and the White people have nothing to do with what Jewry, Zionists, Israel do or don’t; despite the appearances.

  63. @Svigor

    The Brits had this obsessive .. thing .. about keeping the Frenchies (used to be the Dutch) out of anywhere that could give the damned Frogs the reacharound to disrupt their maritime operations both commercial and military, so tended to follow them to the ends of the earth in an attempt to forestall them.
    Even into the landlocked wastelands of the New World, as well as the more strategic Indies, and the Antipodes/Pacific. Eventually the effort overextended them.
    An accidental empire, and all that, Master and Commander style. Harrison’s chronometer, for instance, was merely part of the age-old struggle to outwit the garlicky and cloggy neighbours. Brexit is a continuation of that urge. We’re not actually all that interested in Abroad, or Foreigners. We just don’t want them all turning up Here, all at once, same as now.

    What would a German- or Belgian-ruled India or Africa have looked like, I wonder? Slightly less brown, I suspect.

  64. @Superman

    Media has the sheep believing we are the most racist, discriminatory, hateful people,
    Yet we are #1 on every emigrants destination list. People drown and die in the desert to get here.

    I only want immigrants that want to “assimilate”, and want ZERO tax dollars wasted on them until they are citizens. Then the are only entitled to what whitey gets.
    We’ve wasted enough $$$ on our native unassimilatable minority.

    Let’s trade out dissatisfied blacks for grateful Hispanics. One for one.

  65. Clyde says:

    What a waste of electrons.

  66. So it’s only the Indians land when leftists want to stomp all over the right who are mostly white but it’s really not the Indians land and no one wants to go home and live with their own people? Not even the European whites want to live with their own people?
    The Jews claim to be separate, chosen yet won’t go home to live in their chosen land with their own people. The same with other races too, they want to live here but apart and still lay claim to a foreign land and people they don’t want to live in or with.
    I would have no problem living with my people, why do you?
    If the Jews went home to Israel would they still be special when every one around them is the same as them? What good would it do to go on about a holocaust to other Jews? I have a feeling the specialty of them would run out.
    Why do all these groups use the people here as porns for their own personal activism around the world? I don’t support being a tool for someone elses protest in this country why would I support it in someone elses country, especially when your doing nothing but hurting your own allies to install new ones more loyal to the left and some UN stooges. But that’s my opinion. How many people should we kill to build democracies around the globe. Everyone you have attacked so far has one time been an ally but you changed and then so did your allies.

  67. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Get this…Everybody in China looks Chinese!!!….WTF?

    Those wonderfull Chinese Nazis!!!!

    But why do the highly racialized Chinese get to come legally into Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space and vote the Historic Native Born White American Majority into a violently persecuted racial minority? Who ordered this?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  68. utu says:

    “Since I’m Anglo, I always take the Anglo side.” – Which Anglos side do you take? The ones (Brits) who left some land to Indians or the ones (Americans) who rebelled against the Brits to be able to take that land?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  69. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    Who ordered this?

    By “this,” I take it you mean who ordered the destruction of the European peoples, either in Europe or in the white settler states, through the combined effects of suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration*.

    Apparently it has been the Clintons, Bushs and Obamas, the Camerons, Hollandes, and Merkels and there various predecessors since the 1960’s. But since these people all act the same way, in clear defiance of the wishes of the populace (with the obvious exception of the interlopers they have invited to replace their former constituents), one has to assume there is some reason for this genocidal policy that acts with more or less irresistible force on all Western leaders. To identify this reason is surely to identify who has ordered the cultural and racial extermination of the Europeans.

    Here are possible reasons:

    (1) Jews, many of whom are prominent in the drive for the destruction of the racial and cultural homogeneity of the Western nations, acting either as polemicists, or as propagandists or disseminators of ideas. Their objectives may be various, but the destruction of Christendom, the ancient enemy of Judaism, is one obvious motivation. Another would be the destruction of European dominated institutions and businesses, allowing Jews greater scope to acquire wealth and power in business and administration, something they might expect to achieve more easily in a culturally and racially fractured society.

    (2) The Money Power, i.e., the 150 or so global corporations (Jewish controlled or otherwise) that account for most international business, and which seek the destruction of the sovereign, democratic nation state in order to establish global governance by way of trade deals negotiated by or on behalf of corporate interests, and various anti-democratic globalist institutions such as the UN, the Vatican, NATO, the EU, etc. In this project, the states dominated by European people are among the most powerful and therefore the ones to be targeted for destruction first. By destroying the majority indigenous populations and their religious and cultural traditions, the social coherence that allows for democratic and rule-of-law government will be destroyed making the handover of effective control to globalist institutions a simple matter of Clintonesque bribery and corruption.

    Are there any other reasons? I don’t think so. Therefore, I would say the destruction of the European peoples has been ordered by very rich people, many of them Jews, but by no means all of them and perhaps not even a majority of them, although it is the case, I believe, that Jews predominate among America’s wealthiest — certainly the wealthiest 100.

    But I could be quite wrong. So does anyone have a better idea?

    * The scale of white decline is quite extraordinary and far more rapid than probably the vast majority of European people understand. For example, 50 years ago, Europeans accounted for 28 percent of the world’s population. By 2009, that was down to 17%. And in the US, people of European ancestry fell from 83% twenty years ago to around 69% by 2009. Europeans in Europe are predicted by the UN to number less than 5% of world population by 2050, versus 12% sixty years ago.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  70. FLgeezer says:

    As much as I like and respect Reagan, he was the POTUS that elevated many of The Tribe into positions of power and influence in the Federal Government. They have since turned America into Gaza West. Who would have imagined that America would ever be under attack from Islamist extremists or that the Fed would make our currency worthless? What they have done to our once great republic is a holocaust of the 320 million.

  71. Rehmat says:

    Netanyahu loves Trump’s SEPARATION WALL and anti-Muslim rants.

    Netanyahu also remember how a few terrorist incidents made him win against Shimon Peres in 1996.

    In order to let Trump help win the election – Netanyahu pull the Manhattan “pressure-cooker explosion” on Saturday.

    On September 19, Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz carried a headline: Netanyahu Knows a Pre-election Terror Attack Could Aid Trump.

    “If a Trump victory is vital for Israel, as Netanyahu seems to think, and terror attacks are good for Trump, what would Israel do if it knows about a planned attack in the United States?,” wrote Amir Oren, adding that Trump will capitalize on it as Netanyahu did in 1996 against fellow mass killer Shimon Peres.

    Naturally, Netanyahu would do what he did ahead of NYC terror attacks on September 11, 2001 – hide Israeli involvement and blame it on Muslims…..

  72. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Here are some more possible reasons for genociding the European peoples.

    (3) In an age of automation, the common man is of limited value. Certainly, the globalist elite have no need for ten billion plebs uselessly consuming resources and cluttering the planet.

    The plan, therefore, is to transform W. Europe and N. America into arks, wherein representatives of the diversity of mankind will be accumulated, the surplus population elsewhere then to be eliminated by the deployment of suitable biological weapons against which only the desired populations will be protected.

    (4) The US and the European states are now fully urbanized. There is no rural population to draw on that will maintain the vigor of the urban civilization. The plan, therefore, is for the progressive replacement of the Europeans and others now living in Europe and the US with immigrants from the Third World, who being from among the brighter, more energetic and ambitious members of their populations of origin will add to the vigor of EurAmerica, thereby maintain competitiveness with China, India, and other actual or potential rivals in the Third World.

  73. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Lastly, let’s consider our author’s reason for replacement of white Americans for people of color from elsewhere, which she briefly states thus:

    put in election 2016 terms, the new country was, from the beginning, designed as an explicitly racist project to populate the land with white people.

    That is correct, as Israel is a racist project to populate the land of Palestine with Jews.

    In fact, virtually all nations have been populated by force to the benefit of invading groups at the expense of the former inhabitants. Ghengis Khan, for example, a brilliant exponent of ethnic cleansing, is said to have 40 million extant descendants. What we can say, therefore, is that there cannot be one person on the face of the planet who does not owe their existence to some past massacre, rape, or genocide. That this is true of the Jews is evident from their own holy book.

    Why then, should the Europeans now commit suicide because a few foolish or evil people declare it would be racist for them to do otherwise?

    To put that in more technical terms, all human groups act to maintain or maximize their inclusive fitness. Or if they do not, they go extinct. Why then should the Europeans commit suicide? Because a bunch brainwashed self-hating Europeans and a bunch of devious enemies want them to. That is no reason at all.

  74. TheBoom says:

    “Oh, how’s the shopping in Tel Aviv these days, Aviva?”

    Good line.

  75. Wally says: • Website

    Not “created”, but stole, mass murdered, and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians.

    Who demands mass immigration into white gentile countries, but stops non-Jew immigration into “that shitty little country”?
    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress?
    Who owns the White House?
    Who dominates the US Supreme Court?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who runs the music business?
    Who dominates ‘academia’?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
    Who are the real & biggest racists on the planet?

    • Replies: @FLgeezer
  76. TheBoom says:

    Every time I see yet another Jew telling us how evil it is to have border control in white countries, I become just that much more anti-Israel and just that much more sick of Jews. I used to admire Jews’ accomplishments but now tend to focus mainly on the accomplishment of their undermining white countries.

    On a positive note, most of the people Jews are bringing into white countries hate Jews and Israel. That should be fun for the Jews.

  77. @CanSpeccy

    Commit racial and cultural suicide,

    Jews want white people in the US to become like gentile Israeli citizens, second class citizens.

    Second class citizenship in the US means the same thing it means in Israel, endless entitlements for Jews and their fellow victim cultist, and official discrimination directed at a minority of people, especially people they label as Nazi or white supremacist.

    “Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality at the country’s establishment in 1948, making an unusual distinction between “citizenship” and “nationality.” Although all Israelis qualify as “citizens of Israel,” the state is defined as belonging to the “Jewish nation,” meaning not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but also more than seven million Jews in the diaspora.

    Critics say the special status of Jewish nationality has been a way to undermine the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel, especially the fifth of the population who are Arab. Some 30 laws in Israel specifically privilege Jews, including in the areas of immigration rights, naturalization, access to land and employment.

    Arab leaders have also long complained that indications of “Arab” nationality on ID cards make it easy for police and government officials to target Arab citizens for harsher treatment.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  78. “From its first moments, American history has, in fact, been a history of deportation. The initial deportees from the British colonies and the American nation were, of course, Native Americans, removed from their villages, farms, and hunting grounds through legalized and extra-legal force everywhere that white immigrants wanted to settle.”


    “From its first moments, Israeli history has, in fact, been a history of deportation. The initial deportees from the Jewish areas and the Israeli nation were, of course, Palestinians, removed from their villages, farms, and hunting grounds through legalized and extra-legal force everywhere that Jewish immigrants wanted to settle.”

  79. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Franklin

    Jews want white people in the US to become like gentile Israeli citizens, second class citizens.

    And the the way that will be done is to make EuroAmericans a minority in their own home.

    Among new-born citizens, EuroAmericans are already a minority in Texas.

    Oh, but wait a minute, that was true of the entire US in 2015. There you are then, game over, really.

    That’s the trouble with all that Internet porn, facebook, twittering, Hollywood, shopping and crap TV.

    It makes you take yer eye off the ball and before you know it you’ve been genocided by the Bush/Clinton/Obama Treason Party.

    Tough. But you were only a bunch of racists, anyhow. Just not smart racists. Hopelessly outwitted in what one might call fifth generation warfare: destroyed before you even knew there was a war on.

  80. FLgeezer says:

    Who will eventually gain total control of the Internet since America is soon to cede ICANN?

  81. Svigor says:

    It’s less than 99%, especially among their youth, more and more are liberals in good faith and not in a stricly selfish way any more.

    Wrong issue. I was talking about their monolithic, lockstep support for open borders. And it really is 99%, as far as I can tell.

    Netanyahu loves Trump’s SEPARATION WALL and anti-Muslim rants.</blockquote

    That must be why Bibi distanced himself from Trump early on, and has maintained that distance ever since.

  82. Svigor says:

    Sorry, make that 99% support for open borders for WESTERN countries. American Jews never criticize ISRAEL’S closed borders.

  83. Ms. Chomsky has not studied enough to discover the tortured legal history of the fourteenth amendment. She is dead wrong about the fourteenth. Here’s some information to clear up the matter.

    Mexican case:
    Citizenship in the US is defined in Amendment Fourteen: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Here is the relevant part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:  “The Mexicans by birth shall be…The individuals born abroad from Mexican parents who were born within national territory, from a Mexican father who was born within national territory or from a Mexican mother who was born within national territory…The Individuals born abroad from naturalized Mexican parents, from a naturalized Mexican father or from a naturalized Mexican mother…

    A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. However, Mexican citizenship is primary because the Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry.

    Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship: rights and duties. This is what establishes jurisdiction thereof, and since Mexican citizenship is primary for anchor babies, Mexico has primary jurisdiction over their new citizen.

    2. Precedent Law

    Wong Kim Ark (WKA, 1898) is the precedent SCOTUS case for the legal status of anchor babies. The truly narrow application of WKA is emphasized reviewing the concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.

    “[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.”

    For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have “…permanent domicile and residence…” But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.

    Legal aliens can indeed have a “. . .permanent domicile and residence. . .” and WKA appears to be written for this class of persons. However, it is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

    WKA and Birth Tourism

    Many foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife’s pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called “birth tourism.”

    WKA calls out two qualifications to allow birthright citizenship: permanent residence and doing business. A temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification and precedent for a “birth tourism” child to be granted birthright citizenship.

    It’s Bad Law

    Clearly enough, allowing “anchor babies” for illegal immigrants or temporarily-present aliens is a gross misinterpretation of the precedent law.

  84. syonredux says:

    “Since I’m Anglo, I always take the Anglo side.” – Which Anglos side do you take? The ones (Brits) who left some land to Indians or the ones (Americans) who rebelled against the Brits to be able to take that land?

    six of one, half a dozen of the other, dear fellow. Check out the history of Canada. The Anglos ended up getting all the valuable real estate there, too. It was just a question of timing…..

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  85. @Wizard of Oz

    So you’re saying Reagan was right to have signed the two worst bills the legislature sent him? “We are not men, we are devo.”

    And what would be the consequence of not having easy divorce?

    The bastardy rate among blacks in 1960 was barely half of that among whites today. Children rendered fatherless by divorce were rarer as well.

    The utopia promised by divorce and abortion advocates sure is taking its time coming into existence.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  86. @Reg Cæsar

    America’s problems with the descendants of slaves are not readily understood by an Australian trying to extrapolate from Australian conditions. Still a lot happened between 1960 and the Reagan era legislation. My impression and memory is that the breakdown of the African-American family was well under way by the time Reagan took office.

    And the only connection I can see with abortion is that Popes and some other Christians are sgainst both abortion and divorce.

  87. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Check out the history of Canada. The Anglos ended up getting all the valuable real estate there, too.

    Not so. Most native land claims in Canada have yet to be settled.

    Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that first nations treaty rights remain unextinguished. Moreover, under those treaties, the first nations of British Columbia claim more than 100% of the land area of the province. In the Province of Ontario, the Algonquins, a nation of about 10,000 people that during the early years of the 17th Century assisted Samuel de Champlain in establishing the first European colony in Canada, claim all of the land between, and including, the cities of Ottawa and Montreal.

    Negotiations to settle those claims are ongoing and several settlements have already been made. Pending the settlement of remaining claims, which are the great majority, the Province of British Columbia, which holds title to 91% of the Provincial land base, allows no land to be alienated from the crown.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  88. syonredux says:

    Get back to me when British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan become independent Amerind nations….

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  89. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    What can be said of Professor Chomsky, is that she appears consistent in her opposition to colonialism whether in North America or Palestine. However, history is irreversible. Both in North America and in Palestine, interlopers have taken control of the territory and established nations of immigrants, who have settled and multiplied. The destruction of these nations now would amount only to a new genocide.

    This, nevertheless, is what Professor Chomsky apparently wants, at least in the United States, where she would have the borders thrown open to the Third World and the heretofore dominant EuroAmerican population and their associated AfricanAmerican and legally immigrated Hispanic minorities largely displaced by countless millions of Hispanics, Asians, and Middle-easterners, who will not only occupy much of the territory but bring with them religious and cultural traditions incompatible with those of the existing population.

    Such thinking seems pure craziness. An impression only strengthened by the absence of any serious discussion of what is involved and the refusal of the author to respond to readers’ comments. Professor Chomsky case amounts it seems to nothing more than calling racist, Americans who oppose the replacement of their own posterity by people, and the children of people, from elsewhere. Faced with such criticism, North Americans should surely be proud to be racist.

  90. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Get back to me when British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan become independent Amerind nations….

    What is your point? You wish to see non-native Canadians genocided? Kind of stupid, is it not? Certainly, it will make you a person non grata with most Canadians.

    You said that in Canada,

    The Anglos ended up getting all the valuable real estate

    whereas in fact, the first nations still have claim on vast swaths of territory, exercise traditional hunting and fishing rights on claimed land pending land claims settlements, and have in some cases achieved settlements involving large tracts of land.

    The Tsilhqot’in, in central British Columbia, a nation of about 3,000, were last year awarded title to 1,750 square kilometres of territory. The Nisga, with 2,500 local residents, agreed to settle for 2,000 square kilometers in North Eastern British Columbia, plus various other rights and self-government.

    As I pointed out in Post No. 90, and earlier too, history is not reversible. Those who failed to defeat an injustice in their own day, do not get to defeat it in a later generation. Every generation must fight for its own rights and every society must evolve from the point at which it is now.

    In every democratic society it is the obligation of government to preserve the rights and privileges of the existing population. In Canada, the first nations, who account for about 3% of the population, receive considerable aid and respect from both governments and the great majority of citizens, one important measure of first nations welfare being their high fertility, making them the fastest growing segment of the population.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  91. Che Guava says:

    Shooting stars are really quite common.

    You are almost sure to see a few, particularly after midnight, if you are in a place with a clear sky, little light pollution, and watch the sky, even if none of the big meteor showers is on at the time.

    Try it some time. It works.

    That said, living in the brightest spot on the earth as seen from orbit, it is depressing that even on the clearest night, you can never see more than ten to twenty stars and planets, let alone watch for meteors.

  92. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    And I should have mentioned Canada’s self-governing territory of Nunavut, almost ten times the size of the United Kingdom with a population of 31,906 Innuit.

    So yes, the indigenous people of Canada are treated much better than the indigenous people of, say, England, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own cities and towns and punished ruthlessly by a PC liberal-left establishment for opposition to this process of national self-genocide that is being enforced by means of brainwashing in the guise of mandatory education, suppressed reproduction by way of mass abortion, no-fault divorce, and the legalization of prostitution and pornography, all combined with mass replacement immigration.

  93. artichoke says:

    Most Americans are descendants of the European working or middle class. The poor did not have the money for passage. The rich stayed there where it was comfortable. Those who felt exploited and believed they could do better, came here.

    I doubt many of our illegal immigrants have significant ancestry in the conquistadores. That white blood would raise their IQ and social status. Down there, they are unabashedly racist, it’s not even a question. How many illegals do we get who look like the Mexican presidents? Nada. Mexicans who can do well there, stay there and enjoy their lives, or if they choose to move, they apply legally.

    What we’re getting are the losers in Mexican and Central American society, who are failing so badly that they’re willing to live on the margins. We should certainly not reward them or encourage yet more, by leaving a path for legalization that subversive lawyers will certainly lead them to.

  94. GusHall says:

    American Indians immigrated from Asia and displaced the Europeans who lived here. Google “clovis point”.

  95. AndrewR says:

    Chomsky is nothing but an anti-white kikess.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Aviva Chomsky Comments via RSS
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?