Trump's Immigration Patriotism, His High-Concept Campaign, Pascal's Wager: Peter Brimelow Talks To Alan Colmes

Sep 03, 2016

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow writes: British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said that a week is a long time in politics, and in the four days since I talked with Fox’s Alan Colmes (August 30) the world has been transformed—Donald Trump has dramatically reclaimed the patriotic immigration reform issue in an extraordinary speech (something I must humbly say I anticipated below) and is now ahead in some national polls. But my conversation with Colmes ranges far wider. For example, does the U.S. Constitution really require immigration? Does it prohibit a religious test? Do whites have rights? And what is Pascal’s Wager and how does it apply to this Presidential campaign?

It’s really jolly decent of Colmes to invite me on—I’m not sure his listeners approve! My thanks to all involved,

[audio id="9"]

Alan Colmes: Is it fair to say that you are part of the Alt Right movement, Peter?

Peter Brimelow: I don’t know if they would have me! Most of these people are kids in their 20s and 30s, you know. I’m nearly as old as Trump, for goodness sake!

Colmes: Well, that’s pretty old! [Laughter] We had Jared Taylor on last night and he didn’t like the phrase, “White Nationalist.” I know he doesn’t like to be called a White Supremacist. What’s a fair way to describe you?

Brimelow: Well, we had a debate on VDARE.com between Jared and Steve Sailer a few years ago. Jared, at that point, hadn’t given up on the term, “White Nationalist.” I think he calls himself an "identitarian" now, doesn’t he?

Colmes: He said a white advocate.

Brimelow: Steve argued what he called “citizenism” which is really American nationalism, it doesn’t have a racial definition at all. That’s where my heart is.

Colmes: So, you’re a white nationalist?

Brimelow: No; I’m a citizenist.

Colmes: A citizenist?

Brimelow: Jared felt that in the end, political identity derived from race. Steve thought no, that he was arguing for civic nationalism. I’m personally a civic nationalist.

But VDARE.com is a forum site. We allow anybody on it: left, right, any color or creed, who contributes to our critique of the 1965 Immigration Act—

Colmes: But you are promoting the white race. It’s a white site.

Brimelow: We have people writing for us who I would regard as white nationalists. I think Jared is a white nationalist; he’s just given up on the term as hopelessly smeared.

Colmes: Would you say that you are a white supremacist?

Brimelow: No. I’m obviously not a “white supremacist” and neither is Jared. What he is doing derives from the IQ work that was summarized in THE BELL CURVE and that work seems to suggest some other races are more intelligent than whites on average, doesn’t it?

Colmes: Well, it’s interesting to call yourself a citizenist given that, and I’m sure you have heard this many times, you were born in Britain, right? [VDARE.com: Many times = 366 results in Google for “Brimelow” and “immigrant himself” dating back 20 years to abusive reviews of Alien Nation in the New York Times and New York Magazine. ]

Brimelow: Right. So I’m an example of how the American nation is a Proposition Nation, aren’t I? I came here and signed on the bottom line!

Now actually, I don’t think the U.S. is a Proposition Nation. I think there is an ethnic core to the U.S. And one of the problems with immigration is that, over time, it erodes that ethnic core. It brings in different cultural values and introduces various forms of conflict, and so on. That’s why you have to be careful—

Colmes: But, you, like Jared Taylor, I’m guessing, would prefer immigration, if there is to be any immigration, to be from white nations, not people with darker skin, right?

Brimelow: It’s not simply the skin. You can get around that by getting at education level. But in general, you want to have people who assimilate more easily. And race is certainly a proxy for that.

Colmes: But, basically you are talking about preserving a white nation, right?

Brimelow: Well, I think the U.S. is a white nation. It was a white nation when it was founded and it still remains a state that represents a white majority.

So, when you have a situation like you have now with the 1965 Immigration Act, where the government is essentially Electing A New People, importing a whole new cast of characters, who are going to drive the whites into a minority by 2040—

Colmes: But why didn’t our forefathers put “white” in our Constitution?

Brimelow: It was in the first Citizenship Act—only whites were allowed to be citizens [Naturalization Act of 1790 (PDF)]

Colmes: But it’s not in our Constitution.

Brimelow: As I said, it’s in the First Citizenship Act. They just took it for granted in the Constitution.[What the Founders Really Thought About Race , by Jared Taylor, The National Policy Institute, January 17, 2015 ] Now, over time that has changed. But, until the 1960s, it was universally agreed that basically there shouldn’t be non-white immigration into the U.S.

Colmes: So do you think that only whites should live here?

Brimelow: First of all, there is a black minority here, which of course is a legacy. It has been here forever. So obviously, no, America’s not only white. And secondly, I do think you can get around cultural differences and so on by keeping the numbers relatively low and by keeping education levels relatively high—neither of which were done by the 1965 Act.

Colmes: What would you like to hear Donald Trump say tomorrow in his immigration speech?

Brimelow: [Laughs] Well, I’m curious to know what exactly he is going to address! All the focus is on how he is going to handle the stock of illegals who are in the country, but of course, the immigration issue is much wider than that. And his proposals that he made in his position paper last year are much wider than that. [Immigration Reform That Will Make America Great Again, The three core principles of Donald J. Trump’s immigration plan (PDF)]

For example, he is against birthright citizenship. I think he is quite right about that. Most common law jurisdictions have given up birthright citizenship precisely because of the problem of illegal immigrants coming in and having children. Those children are citizens, it becomes impossible to deport them. So, we want him to stick with that.

About the stock of illegal aliens here—the fact is the laws are already on the books. The Main Stream Media claims to think that there are really two choices: mass deportation in cattle cars, or Hillary’s Amnesty. Well, that’s nonsense of course. There’s a wide spectrum of ways to handle this problem between deportation, on the one hand, and Amnesty on the other. We just need to enforce the laws, and over time that stock of illegals will erode.

Colmes: But Trump spoke of a deportation force. I know we have ICE, but he talked about a more aggressive force that would round up and get out of the country those who are not here with documentation. Is that what you want to see?

Brimelow: I think we should simply enforce the laws. Now, this certainly does mean deporting more people.

Colmes: How would you find them?

Brimelow: You know, it’s not difficult, is it? You go to any Democratic convention and you can find them. [Laughter][Right, rare illegal valedictorian Isabel Castillo participates in a public demonstration in front of banner saying “undocumented…unafraid.”]

Colmes: So, just go to any Democratic convention and deport any on the podium and you’ve started the process of getting rid of the people who don’t belong here?

Brimelow: Yes, that’s what we call Strategic Deportation.

Colmes: That’s a joke, right? Going to the Democratic convention?

Brimelow: Of course it isn’t. [Illegal immigrants take stage to address Democratic convention, By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, July 25, 2016].

When you have political demonstrations which are full of illegal aliens, that’s where you should go in and get them from. You realize that in Mexico, the Mexicans don’t allow aliens to demonstrate?

Colmes: So you shouldn’t be able to demonstrate? Anybody?

Brimelow: All I’m saying is that it’s a good way to find illegal immigrants. When people commit crimes, just ask them what their citizenship/legal status is.

Colmes: Here’s what’s troubling. You said actually going to the Democratic convention or people who are protesting. So if you’re exercising your First Amendment rights in this country and you are then…

Brimelow: They don’t have First Amendment rights, because they came here illegally.

Colmes: No, they do. No, you’re wrong.

Brimelow: You can only have First Amendment rights if you’re here legally—

Colmes: First of all, here’s the problem. You don’t know that they’re here illegally. Number two, the Constitution pertains to persons, not just to citizens.

Brimelow: I don’t think that’s right. In any case, if they’re here illegally, they can be deported.

Colmes: But how do you find them? You go to demonstrations and if you are demonstrating and protesting, you then are suspect and should be questioned about whether or not you are here legally?

Brimelow: Well, one thing to do is to systematically deport people who are in violation of the law. If they can’t show that they are here legally, then they should be deported.

Colmes: We are already doing that. If you commit a crime…

Brimelow: No, they are not! They have been releasing criminals by the hundreds of thousands.

Colmes: But you’re talking about a small percentage of people who commit crimes who may be here undocumented.

Brimelow: Let me ask you this: When President Eisenhower started Operation Wetback, more than 1.5 million people left this country. Do you know how many were actually deported?

Colmes: Well, Operation Wetback was something that we have apologized for. [The Federal Government hasn't apologized for Operation Wetback. The Government of California did apologize for its part in the Mexican Repatriation during the Depression.]

Brimelow: Well, we shouldn’t apologize for it! It was a thoroughly good thing! But, the point is, how many people were actually deported in Operation Wetback?

Colmes: Well, you may have the number; I don’t have the number in front of me.

Brimelow: Well, you should have the number!—because here you are talking about the subject! The answer is that only about 2-300,000 were actually deported. All of the rest left under their own steam. They self-deported. And that is what we will see here. They will get the message.

Colmes: Now, Mr. Brimelow, you are not going to get people to self-deport. Mitt Romney used that as part of his platform four years ago and it failed. You are not going to get people to do that. How are you going to get people to do that?

Brimelow: As I just pointed out, what happened in Operation Wetback was that when people realized that the Americans were serious about enforcing their laws, they left. So we have every reason to suppose that will happen again.

And what Romney called for was what is normally called by immigration patriots “attrition through enforcement.” If you systematically enforce the law, for example if you actually pass E-Verify and make it impossible for illegal immigrants to work here, then they will not have jobs and they will leave, because there is no economic reason for them to stay.

Similarly, you could do what the Israelis do and make it impossible for people to remit money out of the country if they can’t prove that they are here legally. That would break the back of the economics of illegal immigration.

Colmes: You know that “wetback” is a disparaging term, correct?

Brimelow: No, I don’t accept that. It’s just a nickname.

Colmes: No, it’s not a nickname. It’s a disparaging term.

Brimelow: One thing about the Alt Right is that it doesn’t believe in Political Correctness. So, no, I don’t accept that.

Colmes: Well, people in the Alt Right movement beat their chest and brag about not being Politically Correct, but words that have meanings. That’s an insulting word to people who are in this country, working—

Brimelow: Well, my advice is get used to it.

Colmes: But that’s not going to happen.

Brimelow: Well, if they don’t like hearing that, then they should leave.

Colmes: But they are not going to leave—

Brimelow: Of course they are going to leave. They leave all the time. There’s constant back and forth with illegal immigrants.

And I have to say, this is only part of the issue, Alan. The real important part is legal immigration. That’s what I’m really concerned with Trump—

Colmes: You want to stop legal immigration too?

Brimelow: Trump has never actually called for an immigration moratorium, which is what we think there should be. But he has said that he wants to make sure that immigration is of a kind and a quantity that leaves American workers’ incomes and job opportunities intact—

Colmes: You would like to keep Muslims out of the country too?

Brimelow: I don’t see any point in Muslim immigration.

Colmes: So you would stop all Muslims from coming into the country?

Brimelow: What do you mean, “coming into the country”? Obviously, business people can come in, tourists can come in. But immigrants stay here. There’s a big difference. I don’t see the point of allowing Muslim enclaves to develop here.

Colmes: We had Jewish enclaves, Spanish enclaves—

Brimelow: And then the 1920s cut-off. There was a 50-year period where there was no immigration, which allowed assimilation to take place. The point is that we need another cut-off like that. We need another time-out.

Colmes: So, let me be clear, you believe there should be no immigration, right? You don’t want anybody coming into the country right now?

Brimelow: Right now, no. In general, I think immigration is useful in small numbers, it does provide a sort of leavening. It helps in various ways. But since 1965, we have had an immigration binge, it’s been going on too long. We need a moratorium for 15-20 years at least.

Colmes: And other than those who are here illegally, is there anybody else who you think should leave the United States who may be here legally?

Brimelow: No. I guess that hasn’t really occurred to me. I suppose where you have Muslims legal immigrants I’m sort of unhappy about that, and so I’m against making any concessions to them in terms of dress rules and so on. But it’s not something I think the federal government should take on.

Colmes: So, you wouldn’t get rid of the Muslims who are in the country legally?

Brimelow: Well, I’d hope they would go away over time—simply, because if they want to be orthodox, if they want to have Sharia Law, they are obviously not living in a very friendly society.

Colmes: Well, a lot of Muslims who are not fundamentalist Muslims live in the U.S.

PeterBrimelow.com

Discussion about this post