When people discuss immigration there are a hidden set of assumptions which are never discussed. The advocates of mass immigration will say things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries, it’s a global phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast majority of people simply accept them; failing to realise they are designed to conceal a very ugly truth.
The reason why the immigration ‘debate’ favours those who support endless immigration into the West is because the term ‘immigration’ itself falsely implies fairness. It does so by implying that:
1. There is only one immigration system, and all countries have the same immigration system, and
2. The immigration system is fair because the outcome of immigration is the same in all countries.
Both these (hidden) assumptions are false. In reality, there are two different systems of immigration, and they have very different outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White, non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the outcome they have in mind.
Most people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East. But when it comes to the immigration system deployed in White countries the system itself has no name. Unsurprisingly, the apologists for mass immigration into the West want to keep it this way. Why? Because, if the immigration system you want to describe cannot even be identified then people are unlikely to notice the inequality, unfairness and bias being directed towards them.
Our first task, then, is to create a suitable name for the immigration system which operates in all and only White countries. For now, I will use the term ‘citizenship immigration’. This name highlights one of the main characteristics of immigration into White, Western countries; namely, mass citizenship and permanent residence for immigrants. But citizenship immigration is also a neutral term. This is appropriate, for now, since we have not yet examined the processes and outcomes of the two immigration systems. But, once the outcome of citizenship immigration becomes clear, it will also become obvious that the term ‘race-replacement immigration’ is far more accurate. Despite being more contentious, the term ‘race-replacement immigration’ fully reflects the direction, motivation and outcome of this system on any population irresponsible enough to deploy it.
To summarize what we have so far: There is no such thing as plain, simple ‘immigration’. What is being referred to is either guest-worker immigration or citizenship immigration. And anyone who wants to imply they are the same thing is either interested in justifying inequality through deception (hiding the ugly truth) or being misled by someone interested in doing so.
The outcome of guest-worker immigration vis-a-vis citizenship immigration couldn’t be more extreme, so let’s take a look at each of them in turn.
One of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time visa), after which they are expected to leave.
A second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is that the total immigrant population always remains the same size. That is, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the required number of immigrants has been reached.)
Let us say that Country A has a homogenous population of 15 million citizens (feel free to choose their race, culture, etc.). Country A decides that, for economic reasons, they need a total of 1 million immigrants. And so they plan to accept 100,000 new immigrants each year, for the next 10 years.
After 10 years, Country A has its 1 million immigrants. However, the total immigrant population never grows above this level because, although 100,000 new immigrants will arrive each year, 100,000 immigrants will also leave as their visas and residence permits expire. In other words, every year, 100,000 immigrants will arrive and 100,000 immigrants will return home – leaving the total immigrant population of Country A at the same fixed level (1 million, in this example).
The overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large number of births, their children will be returned home with their parents.
Notice that if Country A ever wanted to reduce, or remove, its immigrant population it could do so easily. It would simply stop issuing new immigration visas whilst continuing to repatriate immigrants as soon as their visas expired. This would quickly cause the total immigrant population to decline to zero if so desired. Notice also that guest-worker immigration poses no threat to the sovereignty, political power or demographic make-up of the indigenous population (whatever their race, ethnicity or culture may be). The immigrant population is fixed and static, so the indigenous population need never worry about becoming a minority in their own country or about their culture being slowly replaced. In other words, guest-worker immigration provides all the economic advantages of immigration without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country deploying it.
Overall, guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired, the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero since immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents. Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, yet it isn’t deployed in even a single White, Western country.
Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration doesn’t view immigrants as temporary, economic workers. Rather, it treats them as permanent residents and future citizens.
Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration is a cumulative form of immigration; It always leads to an ever-growing immigrant population because there is no expatriation process to keep the overall immigrant population in balance (by offsetting new immigrant arrivals with expatriations). Furthermore, because almost all immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire permanent residence and/or citizenship too.
Overall, citizenship immigration can be characterized by:
I) Endless inward immigration
II) No expatriation process for immigrants, only illegal immigrants may be expatriated.
III) An ever-growing immigrant population
Let’s repeat the same thought experiment we did with guest-worker immigration. Let us say that Country B has a native population of 15 million citizens. Again (just like in our previous example) this country decides it currently needs a total of 1 million immigrants. They too decide to accept 100,000 new immigrants each year, for the next 10 years. This, remember, is exactly what happened to Country A under guest-worker immigration.
After 10 years, Country B (like Country A) has its 1 million immigrants. However, the total immigrant population will never stop growing because, although the same number of immigrants arrive (100,000 new immigrants each year) few, if any, will leave. Most will become permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship (including any children they may have) will no longer even be considered immigrants.
More crucially, however, since citizenship immigration has no expatriation process, the overall immigrant population will continue to rise rather than remain fixed at 1 million (as it did under guest-worker immigration).
In fact, in Country B, the immigrant population will grow by 1 million every 10 years (100,000 new arrivals x 10), and after 100 years the immigrant population will be 10 million, that’s 10 times the size of the immigrant population in Country A (under guest-worker immigration).
Please note that, even if you believe these numbers are arbitrary, you are missing the most important point: we have used the same numbers on both immigration systems. The accuracy of the numbers is more or less irrelevant in comparison to the process responsible for those changes. In particular, we are interested in knowing why one system keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other system leads to rapid growth.
Citizenship immigration not only leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population; it almost guarantees the immigrant population will outpace any growth in the indigenous population. The indigenous population itself can only grow through new births, yet the immigrant population grows through both new births and new immigrant arrivals. And in most cases, new immigrant arrivals will be from a far younger demographic than the indigenous population – so they will naturally tend to have more children.
Overall, citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native population will necessarily become outnumbered by the immigrant population (i.e become a racial minority). Indeed, any country adopting citizenship immigration must accept the idea that its native population will (sooner or later) become a vanishing minority.
Citizenship immigration has a hidden social engineering component which is absent altogether under guest-worker immigration, and, as we will now see, it provides no economic benefits whatsoever.
The Economics of Citizenship-Immigration
Let us be clear: Handing immigrants permanent residence and citizenship (citizenship immigration) provides no additional economic benefits over guest-worker immigration. Indeed, citizenship immigration weakens, diminishes and undermines the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration.
In economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant population itself is static yet it can be intentionally increased or reduced as economically necessary.
Under citizenship immigration, the number of new immigrants being handed permanent residence and citizenship can, in theory, be increased or reduced. Yet, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to expand even if further immigration is stopped altogether!
Citizenship immigration is founded on the idea that immigrants deserve the right to permanent residence and citizenship, and so they are necessarily (as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions, medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly public services. These are clearly additional social costs and overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of citizens alone and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.
Perhaps most crucially of all, guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for and accommodate any financial costs and burdens that supporting an immigrant population may demand (extra schooling, additional transport infrastructure, etc.) But because the immigrant population is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatively small and easy to plan.
Under citizenship immigration, on the other hand, where the vast majority of immigrants will legally remain forever or acquire permanent citizenship, the costs of social provisions will grow rapidly because the immigrant population itself is growing rapidly. Overall, then, there is a vast difference between planning and paying for a fixed, static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant population whose growth rate and social needs will exceed that of the indigenous population.
Finally, citizenship immigration is less economically flexible than guest-worker immigration. Under citizenship immigration, non-working immigrants cannot easily be returned home even if it would be economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’ to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent residence status or cancelling citizenship, measures which were economically unnecessary in the first place.
Overall, then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants citizenship and permanent residence, there are only additional costs and social burdens. Indeed, when we compare citizenship immigration to guest-worker immigration, we find that economics necessarily comes second to socio-political considerations. That is, economics is made to suffer in order to accommodate (hidden) political considerations.
Under guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and demographic engineering.
Citizenship immigration cannot be justified on economic grounds. It is less economically advantageous than guest-worker immigration, it is less economically beneficial, flexible, and highly likely to cause large-scale demographic changes. The immigrant population is almost guaranteed to grow faster than the native population. So why would any sane country want to implement it rather than guest-worker immigration?
Clearly, the motivation behind citizenship immigration is not economic. So, what is it?
The Agenda behind Citizenship-Immigration
In my view, we can gain an important insight into what has motivated our leaders to adopt citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries have implemented citizenship immigration.
At first, there appears to be no rational basis for this choice: Why would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic make-up of the country, especially when a far superior alternative is widely available?
Choosing citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes absolutely no sense, unless radically changing the demographic make-up of your country is the desired result.
We are constantly told that immigration is an ‘economic necessity’, and yet White countries alone operate a completely different immigration system to non-White countries. It’s more expensive, more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. The economic arguments are lies. So what are we supposed to think? Once again, only White countries operate this system, why?
Citizenship immigration has been imposed on all, and only, White countries for a reason. And the only plausible motivation which makes any sense at all is that large-scale social- and racial-engineering is seen as the primary benefit. Incredibly, this, and this alone, seems to be the logical motivation capable of explaining citizenship immigration.
When the advocates of immigration say things like ‘all countries have immigration’ or ‘immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries, it’s a global phenomena’, they are not simply being dishonest; they are deliberately attempting to hide an ugly, biased agenda. There has never been just one immigration system, and the idea that all countries have the same immigration system is a lie. When they say that immigration is fair they know very well that the outcome of the immigration system is very different in White, western countries than it is in any other country in the world. And this should tell us all we need to know about how much these wolves respect fairness and equality.
The Hong Kong and Singapore Objection:
Some immigration advocates might argue that Hong Kong and Singapore are both examples of non-White countries which operate a citizenship immigration programme. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but this argument is easily collapsed on different grounds altogether.
The primary reason why citizenship immigration is so nefarious is because, in all cases, a specific racial group is being targeted for racial replacement. All White countries operate citizenship immigration, and the result is always the same, less and less White people. That is a whole racial group, not simply a specific ethnic group.
By suggesting that Hong Kong and Singapore operate a system of citizenship immigration pro-immigration advocates want to imply that the native population of Hong Kong and Singapore will also be turned into an ethnic minority, or destroyed as a ethnic group. But this is simply not true, and it would not be true even if citizenship immigration was in place in both those countries.
Neither Hong Kong nor Singapore represents a unique ethnic group, let alone an entire race of people. As a nation, Hong Kong is ethnically Chinese, just as Singapore is ethnically Malaysian. So, even if the entire Chinese population of Hong Kong were to disappear, there would still be plenty of ethnically Chinese people in the world (in mainland China where there is certainly no citizenship immigration).
The same is true for Singapore, whose original inhabitants were Malaysian. Even if the entire population of ethnically Malaysian people were to disappear from Singapore, there would still be plenty of Malaysians because Malaysia itself does not have a citizenship immigration system turning them into an ethnic minority. The same, however, cannot be said of Sweden, Germany, Australia or any other White country. Not only do all White countries have citizenship immigration, the ethnic group in each White country (Sweden, Germany, Australia, etc.) would cease to exist if it were to disappear from that country. Indeed, this is exactly what is happening.
The truth is, citizenship immigration is deployed in all and only White, Western countries. So, even if there seem to be examples of something similar in a couple of non-White countries, closer analysis will soon reveal that the ethnic groups supposedly under threat is not under threat at all (as per Hong Kong and Singapore).
It is also enlightening that both Hong Kong and Singapore are very small, highly prosperous countries. In fact, both countries operate some of the most highly valued stock exchanges in the world (the Hong Kong stock exchange is 2nd largest in Asia, and 5th in the world). This, perhaps, sheds some light on the power, influence and agenda of the kinds of people interested in imposing citizenship immigration on the West.
The Demographic Decline Objection:
These days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of their native White population. On the surface, this appears plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious credibility problem.
If citizenship immigration is necessary to prevent economic and/or demographic decline then why hasn’t this objective ever been stated openly and publically? In other words, if the governments of White countries truly believe that the ethnic and racial make-up of all White countries needs to be sacrificed in order to prevent economic and/or demographic decline, then why hasn’t this decision ever been stated openly and clearly? But in truth, the opposite is true: Western governments, big business, the media, politicians and other elites have done everything possible to silence any debate on immigration. And so far they have been very successful in hiding the truth: That there are two, very different systems of immigration; one of which is intended to turn all and only White countries into racial melting-pots in order to save them from ‘economic collapse’ or ‘demographic decline’.
The fatal blow for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, comes from the highly selective (and secretive) way in which citizenship immigration itself has been deployed. It exists in all White countries, and only White countries. Yet, are ALL White countries in demographic decline? And even if they are, are there not alternative measures which don’t lead to the indigenous White population becoming a minority in every White country on Earth?…
If citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like China, Taiwan, Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?
Qatar, for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar, nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?
The final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.
When Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost native Hungarian birth-rates. The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.
Thus, in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen, not Mr Orban, which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave enough to even suggest them.
Indeed, French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to engage in race-mixing and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.
If nothing else, Mr Sarkozy should be congratulated for his candour. But there can be little doubt that his vision of a non-White, non-European ‘Europe’ is shared by the leaders all White, Western countries on earth – at least by those who want to remain in their positions of privilege and power.
We have looked at just two potential objections to citizenship immigration. But rather than disproving the claim that citizenship immigration is motivated by an ideological desire for race-replacement, the ‘demographic decline’ argument, in particular, seems to lead us back to the very same conclusion. Namely, that those who seek to justify citizenship immigration are not motivated by economics or supposed benevolence towards their own race (i.e. to prevent ‘demographic decline’) but by a covert, yet fervent, desire to engage in racial engineering in all and only White countries. Their position is clear: White people must become a minority in all White countries, and policies like citizenship immigration have been created to ensure that all White peoples must become racial minorities in their own native homelands.