Addressing Fence Sitters: Allaying Concerns About Remigration

Earlier by Gen Z-Gal: From Gen Z Democrat to Nationalist: My Journey of Disillusionment

Last week, during a project related to my BA, I sat with an all-female group of my classmates and our conversation quickly turned to the political—as it inevitably does in any college environment. I am used to this. Being a suburban White woman in a college full of suburban White women (as most of them are now), I get a daily front row seat to the worries and concerns of America’s most upwardly mobile class. In order to complete my degree and not get thrown out of my college for thought crimes, I politely nod along with many of their most unhinged statements. But I also take notice of their frequent dissent from the liberal maxims we’ve been fed our entire lives.

Many of these women harbor serious doubts about the direction of the country and of leftism generally. All of us worry about the real effectiveness of mass immigration’s supposed benefits. They worry about crime (namely about the possibility of being sexually assaulted by a strange foreign man). They don’t REALLY want to see men invade our female spaces. And they think that liberalism has over-promised in a variety of ways. They know they have been allowed to “girl-boss” far too close to the sun, and that it has not made our lives as upwardly mobile women happy. And we are noticeably less safe.

These concerns are fleeting though almost always followed up by a reflexive “race isn’t real,” “but I’m not a racist,” or that “trans women are women!” to which everyone else present, who just moments ago were nodding along. These women, agreeing earlier about the fear of being assaulted by a foreign man, or questioning the “benefits” of mass immigration, will jump to agree that they also are not racists nor transphobes.

This nicely preludes the conversation I had in this group last week. One of my classmates mentioned how crazy it was that people were trying to abolish the H-1B program—that this was xenophobic and would be detrimental to the economy. Another classmate fired back, explaining that it was because of H-1Bs that her fiancé hadn’t been able to find work since graduating. Another girl nodded along in agreement and said her brother found it impossible to get a programming gig in California because “they only hire Indians in Silicon Valley now.”

Of the nine of us sitting around the table, seven agreed that H-1Bs were harming the ability of college graduates to get jobs. So I went out on a limb and said that even if we abolished the H-1B program, we needed to send the current H-1B holders home, otherwise those jobs would never open up to our boyfriends, brothers, or us as college-educated women. I even went so far as to explain that if these families left, it would also lessen pressure on the housing market, hospitals, and schools. However, my proposal was met with a much more varied and generally negative reaction.

None of my classmates disagreed because they disapproved of the idea of deporting people. They disagreed because they viewed my proposal as contrary to the Civil Rights mantra and anti-racism messaging that has flooded American life since the 1960s. This is not their fault, and I myself believed these things until very recently.

When I was a Democrat and Liberal, I was convinced that any attempt at controlling the demographics of a society automatically and in all instances led to a return to some kind of Jim-Crow-caricature society where segregation or apartheid reigned supreme once more in order to allow White people to enjoy homogeneous living.

This is because decades of left-liberal indoctrination made this thinking the default. America opened its borders (the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act) in the same decade that we finally squashed Jim Crow and lived up to our promise of equality before the law for all people (the 1964 Civil Rights Act). The Left made sure to equate the two at every opportunity, and many leftists sincerely believe the two are one singular project. The result of the marrying of these two events is that to many people assume that if you are pro-immigration restriction you must also be for Jim-Crow-style segregation.

These arguments have been further illustrated thanks to apartheid era South Africa and its inevitable inability to maintain its racialist system of government. The left has been able to make people assume that if White people want to govern ourselves for the benefit of ourselves, that must mean we want to establish an apartheid-type system for anyone who isn’t us and living within our borders. Ultimately, then, if you are in favor of Remigration, the only means to reverse our demographic decline of the American people, then you must be pro Jim Crow, apartheid, and every other form of discrimination one can imagine.

Furthermore, the right accepted this framework. The inevitable result of this indoctrination is that most people now believe there are really only three ways to organize a human society:

1. Liberal global-multiculturalism (the current regime)
2. Conservative free market global-multiculturalism (basically liberal multiculturalism but without abortion, high taxes, or climate policies), or
3. A racist apartheid/Jim Crow regime that openly discriminates against people

Quite obviously if the third option is the only way people believe we can have a relatively stable homogeneous society ruled by Americans and for Americans then they are inevitably going to prefer options 1 and 2. No one, including myself, wants to be on the side of the political spectrum that is in favor of racially segregated water fountains, unfair trials, police brutality, and other quite distasteful treatment based purely on someone’s unalterable characteristics. The thing that we must make people realize is that these aren’t the only three options and another exists:

A relatively homogeneous society that also prohibits racial and ethnic discrimination. In fact, these societies already exist across the planet.

In order to make this point, though, the nationalist right must be willing, and actually generally seem to be willing, to say that it opposed any sort of return to these failed systems. Moreover, we should point out that liberal multiculturalism is leading to many of the same problems and systems of racial oppression that overtly oppressive multicultural systems like apartheid led to: unfair courts/legal systems, massive security states, the suppression of free speech, and a general unwillingness to tolerate any opposition to the multicultural/multiracial project.

The multicultural liberal regime in South Africa of today has more race laws than the apartheid government ever implemented, and in the United States our warped civil rights laws have created things like mandatory majority-minority congressional districts and overt private and public sector preference for non-Whites. This system is no more morally sustainable than apartheid or Jim Crow. Thus, Remigration is the only humane solution to establish a relatively homogeneous America.

Luckily, there are counties like this that already exist! There are numerous proudly-nationalist and ethnically-homogeneous countries around the world that also have racial and ethnic discrimination protections for minority visitors and residents. These countries have found a balance between protecting the demographic dominance of the nation-state forming ethnic group and the minority visitors and naturalized citizens who live there.

The Greeks engaged in a project of remigration while also maintaining robust anti-discrimination laws.

As a result of mass immigration in the late 1980s, the Greek government passed legislation in 1991 that significantly restricted immigration and enforced the deportation of more than 2 million people that were mostly Albanian. Even when it engaged in what can only be described as remigration, Article 5 of the Greek constitution still guaranteed the protection of life, honor, and liberty without distinction based upon race, nationality, or religion. Today the 90% Greek Greece has robust laws against employment discrimination based upon race, color, national or ethnic origin for any Greek citizen while still maintaining strong control of its borders and a Greek majority. This is exactly what I want for America, and it does not necessitate a return to some long-dead form of racial discrimination in order to achieve it.

Another example in Europe is Poland, which is 98.59% Polish. The Poles maintain a tight immigration system that allows local authorities to designate protected sectors of the job market so that companies cannot hire foreigners to take jobs from native Poles.

This system that protects Polish demography and Polish workers also exists alongside a legal system in the Polish Labor Code that prohibits racial, ethnic, and nationality-based discrimination in hiring, education, healthcare, court proceedings, and other public services for anyone with Polish citizenship as well as visitors to the country.

In reality, there is no reason to accept a framework where tighter immigration laws and, more importantly, Remigration, equate some kind of segregationist and racially discriminatory system for American citizens. If an American has a foreign-born spouse and mixed-heritage children, we should of course have robust protections to ensure those individuals are not mistreated and can participate in public and private life in our country without fear of being denied the same rights as the White population that forms the backbone of the American nation.

After Remigration, we can have a country that resembles the kind of America that Samuel P. Huntington and myself would desire. We can rescue our nation from the disaster that is multiculturalism without any need for discriminatory law.