California is many things to the American public, namely the state acts as a popularly depicted poster child for the type of deeply progressive blue dystopia that many Americans fear is the future of the United States as a whole, and which is suffering all of the expected consequences of rule by what many people would call the “radical left”. This image, while generally accurate, also obscures another: that White Californians, foundational Californians, are a much more complex and dynamic group in their politics – and that this distinct and foundational group of Californians risks being eliminated in the polity they founded.

For more than a century the state sought to preserve its origins as an entity founded by and for people of European extraction. In 1879, just 29 years after becoming a state, California revised its constitution to limit land ownership to only those of “the White race or African descent”. Throughout its history, including in 1913, and 1920, California has limited land ownership and even land lease agreements to only those Americans who formed the core demographics of the country. These laws, which banned “aliens ineligible for citizenship”, served as California’s way to reinforce its White demographic composition and were underpinned by the immigration laws of the United States that, from 1790 to 1952, explicitly limited immigration to the US to people of European heritage.

This drive to conserve what California was is not entirely gone in the modern state and the politics of its White population are the best reflection of this. 47% of White Californians voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, barely a 4-point gap with the 51% of White Californians who voted for Joe Biden. This divide, this swing vote nature, plays out in numerous other ways among White Californians. When asked to identify with a political camp 37% of White Californians identify as Conservatives, 37% identify as Liberals and 26% identify as Moderates.

In contrast 82% of Blacks in California vote blue and so do 75% of Hispanics, 76% of Asians, and 59% of other racial groups. It does not matter what camps these groups fall into on a “political identity” chart when they block vote in the same manner in every election.

This reality means that the politically competitive nature of the White population of California is drowned out in a sea of non-White voters who practice a form of monolithic political partisanship that is alien to Whites both in California and in general. The true California is obscured by this massive non-White population and the only way to give White Californians their voice back is to give them their home back through a policy of humane repatriation.

Pre-1965 California:

The California of today looks little like the California of the pre-1965 immigration act and pre-Reagan Amnesty (1986 IRCA) era. Before these sweeping pieces of legislation California, which had a population of some 15.7 million in 1960, had demographics centered around a large White majority:

• 2% Asian
• 5.6% Black/African American
• 9.1% Hispanic
• And 83% White American

Throughout the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries, Asians had steadily declined down from nearly 10% of the state’s population while African Americans increased from roughly 0.7% of the state’s population at the turn of the century to 5.6% as cited above. The Hispanic population likewise fluctuated during this period, going from roughly 15% in 1850 (the year California became a state) and shrinking to about 2.1% by 1910. The Hispanic population in California then held steady at around 7% for nearly 40 years between 1930 and 1960, all before the era of modern mass migration.

It’s worth mentioning that many of these Hispanics were not immigrants or their descendants but pioneers much like the White settlers of California. These Hispanic pioneers, known as Californios, were permitted to remain in the state after the signing of the Treaty of Cahuenga (Tratado de Cahuenga) which ended the Mexican-American war in the region. Californios were allowed to return to their homes and ranches and were granted the same political rights and privileges as White Americans in the region.

Californios such as Andrés Pico (who negotiated the Californio provisions of the Treaty of Cahuenga) went on to play an active role in Californian life. Pico served as a state assemblyman, state senator, and officer in the state militia.

This California, with its strong foundational White majority and small fiercely loyal Hispanic settler population, has long since morphed into something new and dysfunctional.

Post-1965 California:

The California shown in the 2020 census is radically different from the California of the 1960 census. California’s population has well more than doubled from 15.7 million circa 1960 to a peak of 39.5 million as of the 2020 census. Today the racial demographics of the state reflect this radical change:

• 15% Asian
• 5% Black/African American
• 39% Hispanic
• And 35% White American

In 1960 only 8.7% of the state’s population was of foreign birth and the overall foreign-born population was just 1.3 million people, overwhelmingly from Europe and other Western countries. Between 1960 and 1990, when the 1965 Immigration Act and Reagan’s 1986 farmworker amnesty came into law, California’s foreign-born population had exploded to 6.5 million.

The Reagan amnesty is especially significant in the story of the transformation of California, as the legislation almost singlehandedly transformed California, the late President’s home state, from a red state to a blue state. The Center for Immigration Studies has found INS data showing that more than 880,000 amnesty applications were known to be fraudulent yet those individuals were admitted into the United States anyway. An additional 300,000 applications were being reviewed as fraudulent as well.

Nearly 10% of all applicants lived in just 11 Los Angeles zip codes while 87% of all applicants lived in four states: California, Texas, Illinois, and New York State.

In some states, like California, Federal officials did not even review applications, they simply rubber-stamped them, leading to masses of fraudulent applicants eventually becoming US citizens. In the few offices where interviews and investigations were conducted, such as out of one INS office in Houston, the number of true farmworker applicants was as low as 15%.

Other estimates have shown as many as 85% of applications should have been denied nationwide. Yet few were ever refused and upwards of 2.7 million people were granted the right to live, work, and remain in the United States despite breaking American laws.

And the knock-on effects did not stop there. Once granted legal residence many of Reagan’s “New Americans” used the family reunification system to bring in an additional 2.1 million family members.

Today, 27% of the state’s population, or about 10.5 million people, is composed of recent (first-generation) immigrants. This foreign-born population is nearly double the 14% foreign-born average for American states and represents 23% of all foreign-born people in the United States.

This foreign-born populace is the natural place to start in any attempt to repatriate non-Whites from California.

Repatriation Policy Options:

Illegal Aliens:

The first and most natural step is to deport the roughly 2.7 million illegal aliens that official sources acknowledge as residing in California (there are many more, but we are using official statistics for this piece). These undocumented immigrants would also need to take their roughly 886,000 children under the age of 18 out of the country with them, as we do not believe in family separation. Additionally, the 166,000 legal (noncitizen) immigrants married to illegal aliens should also be required to leave the country because they have attempted to aid in immigration fraud.

In total, some 3.8 million residents of the state, all connected to illegal aliens or themselves illegal, could and should be expelled.

California could even expel these aliens without the aid of the Federal government as the Supreme Court has ruled that a Texas law enabling the state to both arrest and deport illegal aliens is constitutional (at least for the time being).

Visa Holders:

Roughly 45% of immigrants in California do not yet possess US citizenship and are potentially easily removable from the state. Canceling the visas and green cards of these non-citizens would enable the removal of some 3.9 million people, 88% of whom will be Hispanic or Asian.

This population too would need to take their under-18 children along with them when they leave the country, or roughly 1.88 million additional repatriates.

In sum, an additional 6.6 million people could be repatriated and deported from California if the United States adopted a policy of not renewing visas, green cards, and other documents granting immigrants the right to remain.

Combining these figures with illegal alien deportations brings the total number of potential repatriations under these two categories of non-citizens up to 8.58 million individuals.

This set of actions alone would increase the White Californian share of the state’s population from 35% today to 44.6% post-repatriation, a jump of some 7.6 points simply by removing non-citizens and their relatives from the state.

With illegal aliens, resident aliens, and non-US citizens out of the way, this brings us to the large non-White population in the state that has acquired a US passport through naturalization. The most efficient method to deal with this population is through a mandatory review of their citizenship and immigration paperwork, specifically if the immigrants in question entered via the family reunification system.

70% of immigrants in the United States are admitted based on family ties, not for work or school. This means that a large portion of people who have acquired US citizenship are likely to have done so fraudulently. The proof for this is best demonstrated by a 2008 incident wherein the US State Department discovered, through DNA testing, that over 80% of individuals admitted into the US as a family member of a “refugee” were not related. The US government has since mandated DNA testing for refugees who request their family members come to the US, but this DNA testing mandate has not been put in place for any other category of family reunification.

By simply requiring proof that immigrants are related through marriage and birth certificates, and yes DNA testing, it is likely that more than half of naturalized US citizens in California, and the nation as a whole, could have their citizenship revoked on the grounds of fraud. Citizenship can also be revoked on the grounds of felonies committed before a person becomes naturalized.

This process could, assuming a generously low fraud rate of just 50% (and in all likelihood, the fraud rate is closer to the aforementioned 80%), result in 2.88 million naturalized immigrants in the state of California losing their US citizenship and being removed from the state and the nation. They would also be required to take their underage children with them, largely comprising the remaining 1.2 million school-age children of immigrants who reside in California.

Conclusion:

In total, the abovementioned policies could result in the removal of some 12.7 non-White first and second-generation immigrants from the state of California. If the number of immigration frauds is significantly higher (and it likely is) and if the nation were to review policies such as the 1986 IRCA and its known fraudulent applicants the number of repatriations could exceed 17.5 million individuals.

This process would result in the White population of the state increasing from 35% today to 51.4% or even to 61.2% depending on how far back and how in-depth the citizenship review process goes. California’s population would be reduced from 39.5 million today to 26.84 or as low as 22.4 million people, helping to alleviate some of the severe and ongoing crises related to the state’s overpopulation such as drought, vehicle-related smog, and some of the worst traffic in the nation.

California reflects the demographic destiny of much of the nation and if the Great Replacement can be turned around in the Golden State then it bodes exceptionally well for the whole nation.