Immigration: The Ultimate Get-out-the-vote Drive

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   8/11/14
One reason predictions of a Mitt Romney victory in 2012 were inaccurate, say analysts, is that the turnout among certain Democrat constituencies — in particular blacks and Hispanics — was greater than expected. And what a significant factor this is. Whether we call it getting out the vote, having a great “ground game” or just turnout, it can make or break an election.

But while the phrase “getting out the vote” is well understood, there is a lesser known election strategy: getting in the vote. What’s the difference? While the former involves getting as many as possible of the set number of sympathetic potential voters to the polls, getting in the vote is the process by which you increase that number of sympathetic voters. This process is most effectively exercised by Democrats, and it’s done in two ways. One is by indoctrinating people — especially young people — via academia, the media and entertainment. The second way is through immigration.

Why immigration? Because virtually the whole world is, to use our provisional (and lacking) political terminology, to the “left” of America. In addition, indoctrinating a young person is effective, but it’s an expensive process that must continue throughout his formative and teen years. Far easier is to import ready-made leftists. The results are quicker, too: the targeted babe born today won’t be entering the voting booth for 18 years. An immigrant, however, can perhaps be naturalized in just a few years. And politicians are more interested in the next election than in a future election involving the next person to hold their seat.

Moreover, you have to add to this the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’s creation of a status quo in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. This is significant because, like it or not and whatever the causes, there is an ironclad correlation between racial/ethnic identification and voting patterns. The GOP derives 90 percent of its votes from approximately 63 percent of the population: whites. In contrast, there is no major non-white group (note that I’m including Hispanics in this even though most are anthropologically classified as Caucasian) that doesn’t break Democrat by wide margins. Blacks cast approximately 94 percent of their votes for Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians come in at about 75 percent.

So if you’re a Machiavellian leftist who values power above all else, what do you do?

You increase the non-white segment of the population while decreasing the white segment percentagewise — as much and as fast as possible.

Call this demographic warfare. The idea is that if the people won’t change the government to your liking, you change the people.

This places our current border crisis in perspective. It explains why Barack Obama will not enforce immigration law. It explains why we’ve had seven amnesties during the last few decades, all accompanied by unfulfilled promises to secure the border. And it explains why a promoter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was hard-core leftist Ted Kennedy. Expecting power-hungry Democrats to seal the border and not facilitate the invasion of our nation is like supposing they will cancel their get-out-the-vote drives. Migration — illegal and legal — is one of the main ways in which they grow their constituencies.

Yet while we, again, face a largely statist world, Democrats would still prefer non-white migrants. There could be many reasons for this, but I will mention three. First, many such migrants are especially socialist, which is why south-of-the-border peoples have elected demagogues such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Second, they’re poor. This means that, unlike some European immigrants, they have no reason to be concerned about higher income tax rates. It also means that in a prosperous land in which they see wealth surrounding them, their socialist tendencies will be stoked all the more. Envy is a dangerous and easily exploited sin, and why shouldn’t they get a piece of that American pie?

Lastly there is the divide-and-conquer factor. Even if European immigrants are left-leaning, they will nonetheless associate with and more quickly assimilate into the more conservative white majority. In contrast, consider Hispanic immigrants. They generally will circulate within a left-leaning group — the wider Hispanic community — which places them in an echo chamber in which their socialist tendencies are reinforced, nurtured and where deviation from them could make one a pariah. It also makes them ripe for racial/ethnic demagoguery. You don’t want to vote like the gringos, do you? And I think here about how Obama told Hispanics in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections to “punish” their “enemies.” To whom do you think he was referring?

In fact, assimilation of many of these newcomers isn’t just unlikely, it’s impossible. This is because we have in our midst more than just an ethnic echo chamber — we have a burgeoning nation within our nation.

Consider: approximately 50 percent of our legal immigrants come from Mexico, and 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation. This translates into a legal and illegal Mexican-heritage population of 20 to 30 million — perhaps 20 percent of Mexico’s population. The consequences of such an unbalanced and suicidal immigration policy are severe, and they were explained well by University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution:

In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group’s challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.

So liberals are seeking to overwhelm what they call white America through demographic change. In the name of power, of a get-in-the-vote drive, they happily commit cultural genocide, the fear of which, Professor Tierney goes on to write, “is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. … For example, in the Mexican-United States case….”

This is why our handwringing over the current border crisis is a little ironic. Yes, the situation is outrageous, but taking exception to illegal migration while blithely accepting our legal-immigration regime is like thinking that government death squads are preferable to roving gangs of murderous miscreants. Demographically, politically and culturally the two types of migration have precisely the same effect. All the illegal variety does is accelerate the process, giving the left more votes now and authentic Americanism a quicker, and perhaps more merciful, death.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (1322 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Immigration: The Ultimate Get-out-the-vote Drive

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    A friend of mine has occasionally mentioned a poem (either by Auden or Brecht, I can’t remember which) about a Party committee deciding that they needed a new electorate, since the old one wasn’t happy with the Party. (This sounds more like Auden, since he eventually rejected communism, but I can’t be sure.) It’s clear that liberals have learned from this, and seek to follow this (joking) advice. This is why it can be dangerous giving liberals strange ideas — there’s nothing too strange for them to do if it helps them politically (which is all that matters to them).

    A key aspect of that, of course, is making sure that immigrants don’t assimilate as they eventually used to do. Having a large number from a nearby country, who tend to gather together (as immigrants have always done) and then stay together instead of assimilating in later generations (contrary to the former norm) is an important aspect of this. Indeed, one can argue that one reason for the strength of non-white support for Democrats is that they haven’t assimilated into the larger culture, which keeps their racial identity intact (encouraging the identity-group politics on which modern liberalism relies).


    Nothing to disagree with here, Selwyn. Democrats are cynically destroying the country with immigration to cement themselves in power, and too many Republicans (for slightly different reasons) are going along with them. We need Republican leadership bold enough to call out the Democrats on this issue and explain to the people that the Democrats are using immigration to achieve power, and that they don’t care what happens to American wages or even the country’s cohesion. Instead, we get John Boehner’s lawsuit – which doesn’t even mention immigration!

  3. Misanthropette says:

    This is too logical and too well-written to dispute. However, knowing what is happening and why it is happening doesn’t offer guidance about possible actions or counter-attacks. It is also demoralizing to understand, finally, that the America you were born into in no way resembles the America of the imagination; of the Founders. There is no representative government here. There is no “We the People” here. There is Animal Farm here and the pigs run the barnyard.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Very well said, Misanthropette. You definitely have your hand on the sick pulse of America. Welcome to the site. I hope you stay around.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      This is no quick fix to this problem. It will take the equivalent of bailing out the Titanic with a only a teaspoon, but if enough of us have teaspoons, we just might be able to do it.

      First, there is the immediate problem of amnesty. In order to fight that, you must contact your Senators and Representatives and let them know how much you oppose any such amnesty in any form. Don’t just contact them once. Contact them everytime you hear Obama or some other criminal fool pushes to give any type of amnesty to “the children” or anybody else.

      Join an anti-amnesty group such as NUMBERSUSA.COM which is well organized and has people in D.C. who keep abreast of what is happening there as regards immigration legislation.

      Get out and vote against those who support amnesty and increased immigration. If your choices are not perfect, vote for the one who is less bad on immigration.

      Write your local newspaper condemning amnesty and the loose immigration policies and poor law enforcement which have allowed millions of illegals to come to and stay in the USA thereby costing millions of Americans jobs on the one hand and lowering wages on the other.

      Spread the word to your family, friends and neighbors. Educate them.

      There is more to do, but I hope this gives you some ideas and a push to get busy. This will not be easy, but the country is at stake.

      I believe it was some Latin American politician who said, “he who tires loses.”

      Never give in, never give in, never give in.

      • Misanthropette says:

        I have contacted my [Oxymoron alert!] “elected representatives” so frequently and disabused their positions so often, I now have them on speed dial. I also spent two weeks calling every senator during 2013 to defeat S. 744.

        Forgive me, but my take on this is somewhat different from yours, Kung Fu Zu. My natural cynicism tells me not to view elections as an answer, or electing the “right” people in Washington as a solution. The solutions can only lie with the people locally. I know elections make people feel energized and “connected” to the process, but they’re planned well ahead of time and the votes cast have already been decided by national party machines and monied interests. I do not write that to discourage anyone but it’s time we all stepped up to reality. If you need a cocktail to brace yourself, feel free.

        I support Federalism as it was originally conceived and guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. That isn’t what we’ve got and neither party will ever “restore” a version of constitutional government no matter whom you elect. Let’s look at this trend: Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter, both Bushes, Clinton and Obama. See the decline in Constitutional obeisance? I don’t see the trend reversing. It then becomes time to imagine where this trend leads us next, as a people and as a nation.

        For all my protesting of Obama’s lawless bankruptcy actions, Stimulus spending, Obamacare, phone calls, emails, storming Capital Hill, and working on elections, I got back-stabbing, lying, amnesty-supporting, pathway to citizenship plotting, sequester two-timing “Tea Party” Republicans, who colluded, er, “engaged in bipartisanship” against me. When I protested, the National Capital police pointed high powered rifles at me and my compatriots and threatened me at my home. Yeah. No lie.

        When I contacted my Republican to protest (vociferously) expanding H-visas, and Mike Lee about his E-visa push, I was patronized and insulted. No more. I left the Catholic Church because of its complicity in destroying our sovereignty. I’m prepared to fight to separate from this country.

        Republicans are by and large corrupt, stupid, white male dolts (no intentional offense to white males) and back-stabbing liars, and I sincerely, deeply, hope and pray they end their days drugged to oblivion squishing around in smelly adult diapers with drool cups permanently attached to their lower lips. I will not be casting a vote this November; not for my primary undefeated “Republican” who promised to rein in Washington, and not for his quasi-communist “challenger”.

        There’s sticking your neck out for a good cause and there’s the smart way to handle this; stealthily, like the gators and snakes I see on the bike trails; stomachs bulging from a recent kill. I aspire to that kind of “activism” these days.

        This fragmented populace either breaks apart voluntarily or by force. It won’t be pretty and it may well be inevitable, given Congress’ intransigence with regard to its constitutional duty.

        Cocktails, anyone?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I understand what you mean. But my own view is that just about any Republican, no matter how vile (and some of them are pretty vile), is better than just about any Democrat. And in the end, letting the Democrats win means the erection of a liberal fascist police state. This may be inevitable eventually, but I’d like to hold it off as long as possible — preferably till after I’m dead, anyway.

          • Misanthropette says:

            I no longer believe that any Republican is better than any Democrat. They’re just two trains headed over the cliff at different speeds. When two parties are determined to dismantle our borders and sovereignty, neither deserves your vote.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          So far as I can see, you have offered no concrete timely ideas as to how to correct the problem.

          One does not have to feel “energized” or “connected” to try and do something to bring about a correction of course. One does have to keep trying. It is not glamorous or will it bring about an immediate correction to the problem. But it might make some difference in the long run.

          As for being ready to fight to separate from the country, well you could certainly try. But I would suggest you wait until there is some apparent groundswell for such a fight. And that this groundswell is so large as to give you an indication that you might have a slight chance of success. Otherwise, you would simply end up as a case of road kill.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            There was a nice example of what citizens can do Tuesday in Milwaukee. The County Sheriff, David Clark, was running for re-election after having urged citizens to be ready to defend themselves because the police can’t always be there in time. Naturally, the gun prohibitionists (such as Michael Bloomberg, who spent $150,000 on the race) and local Democrats were appalled by this independent streak, supporting an anti-gun police lieutenant. Clark (a black) won the Democrat primary despite their opposition (albeit by a 52-48 margin) and despite being heavily outspent in a local race.


          I would suggest you are overlooking one vital point, namely, the struggle going on for control of the Republican Party between the Establishment and the (Conservative) base. For while the conflict over this country’s future may yet come to a contest of armed force, the time to use force or threaten to use defensive force to secure a secession is after you’ve raised a militia, and the time to do that is after you have control of a political party and have fully justified taking extreme measures. There is as yet no organized resistance to the government, and things will have to be done in the order I specified (not because I’m in charge of the universe, but because that’s that only practical way).

          Therefore, I suggest you join in the struggle for control of the GOP. If it fails, we will have to withdraw from it and form a new Conservative party. Only after we control a political party should we form a national militia (and at that point we should, to make sure the Left takes us seriously).

          • Misanthropette says:

            That’s a helpful suggestion.

            Kung Fu is correct that amnesty cannot be enacted, or become the national policy via Executive Order fiat.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Oh, can the world stand it if Mr. Kung is actually the optimist of the bunch — at least compared to me? The world turned upside down.

          Ms. Anthropette, everything you said resonates with me. I’m horribly pessimistic regarding the immigration question. Mexicans and other “people of color” flooding in illegally and wantonly across the southern border have been deemed “victims” by our culture. It is the height of “compassion” to treat them inside our borders rather than to try to fix the problem back home.

          For Democrats, the motivation is obvious: They smell not the adult diapers of feckless white males but votes. For Republicans, I don’t think they have an argument against the kind of “compassion” that is floated around by the supposed do-gooders. They are, at the very least, befuddled and, most probably, are cowards.

          Compassion is a grand thing. But there is no compassion for those who are victims living legally along the border who suffer from those flooding in from the south. There is no compassion for the legal and hard-working citizens who have to pay for the services so many of these illegal aliens use. And there’s no compassion or respect for the rule of law itself, for no society can remain good or decent if some of its most fundamental laws (the integrity of a nation’s borders, for instance) are considered dispensable.

          And, I guess, compared to those who are fortunate enough to live in the United States, these illegal aliens are indeed victims of at least inferior ways of being. But then most people on earth do have a lower standard of living than in America. Is the solution to then just let them all walk across the border? Clearly not.

          Republicans are by and large corrupt, stupid, white male dolts (no intentional offense to white males) and back-stabbing liars, and I sincerely, deeply, hope and pray they end their days drugged to oblivion squishing around in smelly adult diapers with drool cups permanently attached to their lower lips.

          I know you had John McCain in mind when you wrote that. What can I say? Do you suppose he takes medium or large?

          Hope is a precious commodity. If it was up to me, I would tar and feather (with chocolate syrup substituting for the tar) nearly every sick creature on Capitol Hill. These people of both parties are engorging themselves at the expense of this nation. They are de facto traitors. They are parasites on our great heritage. So even though I say that hope is a precious commodity, I in no way am turning a blind and rose-tinted eye to the situation as it is.

          But the only way out of our situation is hope. We have to be able to envision a better way, including a way out. When we reduce the entire equation to “F*** it all,” we are surrendering to our enemies while, I suppose, washing our hands of the need to do even small things that are within our power.

          This site, for instance, is within my power, and I want to share that power with others who want to get the word out on how great this country is, as founded, and how little we need socialism or statism or any of the other bullshit the “Progressives” are hawking. Western civilization needs a hug. And in some small way, we can do that here.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Oh, can the world stand it if Mr. Kung is actually the optimist of the bunch — at least compared to me? The world turned upside down.

            I must be doing something wrong! I’d better be sure those brownies I just ate weren’t baked by some Libertarian.

          • Misanthropette says:

            @Brad Nelson,

            Of course you’re correct. I do not enjoy football, but it’s the 4th quarter, and we’re on a 4th down with 10 to go. I’m tired. I’m demoralized. I’m depressed and beat up. I believe the amnesty pronouncement is imminent regardless the >70% of the American people who do not want it. I do not know how to fight this elitist tyranny and I’m trying to channel my inner George Washington at Valley Forge in order to continue the fight.

            Compassion is a highly overrated emotion because it ultimately accomplishes nothing and permits everything. Compassion is a pretext for implementing ill-conceived, damaging policies just as anti-poverty policies relied on the compassion of ignorant people. It is a misplaced consideration in the amnesty question as you and I both understand. This is an invasion and there is no room for compassion when one is fighting a war. There is win or lose.

            Thank you most graciously for responding to me. I appreciate the discussion here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *