By Cyan Quinn

I was asked for an interview by the Fort Worth Report’s (tweet them here) Cecelia Lenzen (you can email her here) about the upcoming True Texas Project conference in Dallas (get your tickets here!).

Predictably, the article was just a hit piece on the conference, but hit pieces just don’t work anymore.

All speakers stood their ground. This “journalist” failed to cover the actual content of the upcoming talks and only shared two small segments of my response. That didn’t stop the True Texas Project from gleaming with pride over their well-organized (and now even more well-advertised!) conference.

Check out their response (featuring us!) below!

Of course, to illustrate how disingenuous (incompetent?) the Fort Worth Report was at covering this story, and to spark some discussion about Remigration in anticipation of the event, I’ve included my full interview transcript below. I can’t wait to meet everyone in Dallas for another interesting and energetic event!

Lenzen: First, I’m curious how you know the folks at True Texas Project, and how long you’ve known them. What’s your relationship with them like?

Quinn: They reached out over X in January, and I spoke at their event in Houston in February. They were wonderful hosts and the audience was educated and curious. The other speakers likewise gave me much to think about, so I’m looking forward to another stimulating event!

Lenzen: What city do you live in? (We just try to contextualize where people are from).

Quinn: I live just outside of DC.

• Can you describe for readers the nature of the White Papers Policy Institute’s work? From what I’m seeing online, the institute is still fairly young so I’m curious what you’d note as some of its biggest accomplishments or efforts so far.

  • Yes! We only formally launched in 2023, and I’m grateful for the incredible reception.

  • Our biggest accomplishment is the mainstreaming of Remigration and the practical and humane proposals we put forward.

  • For example, we were tickled when we noticed Sweden was pioneering a voluntary repatriation effort in 2024 in line with our recommendations. Sweden is often labeled the “canary in the coal mine” of the West’s failing experiment in multiculturalism. However, it is also the first nation to radically reverse its position on migration. We issued a list of recommendations to the Swedish government via an open letter, and they adopted all of them. You can read our latest update here.

  • We’re also happy to see that Remigration as a term is officially part of the Republican platform thanks to Donald Trump and Andy Ogles of TN. Are they reading White Papers? I can’t say for sure or break confidences, but I hope so! I would love to see our draft legislation refined by congress and brought to life. Andy Ogles’ upcoming Remigration Act seems to align with our draft legislation of the same name, although we’ll find out for sure when the bill text is released. Whether he is directly aware of us or not, it doesn’t matter. This is one example of how our ideas, whether directly or indirectly, have percolated into national debate.

• You’re scheduled to lead a discussion on The Remigration Cure at the Year of the Patriot conference. Can you give us a brief overview of what that discussion will look like? How do you explain the remigration cure to people who haven’t heard of it before?

  • Remigration is such an important concept—and one we need to define properly. Remigration is a combination of mandatory policies (deporting illegal immigrants and those who have obtained citizenship through fraud) and voluntary policies (such as a generous stipend offered for relocation to a migrant’s homeland) designed with the intent of reversing the demographic damage of the 1965 Immigration Act which removed the national quota system that preserved the original founding demographic group of the US.

  • For those who think stipends are too generous or expensive for America, I would remind them that we have already been the most generous country in the world, to our detriment.

    • 25% of all Mexicans live in the US. 70% rely on welfare.

    • ~10% of Guatemalans live here. 77% are on welfare

    • 12% of Nicaraguans live here. 75% rely on welfare

    • 12% of Haitians live here. 53% rely on welfare

  • Essentially, we can’t afford not to implement a voluntary remigration program.

• True Texas Project hosted a similar conference in 2024 that some people criticized as racist, noting the event’s discussions on Christian nationalism and “The War on White America.” I’m curious if you had known of that event prior to agreeing to the Year of the Patriot conference, and what your take on it was.

  • I hadn’t heard, but I also don’t care!

  • First, I think people label an idea, person, or organization as “racist” as a way of avoiding inevitable discussions about immigration or race. I think most people recognize that as cowardly, so I think people mostly disregard it. It’s basically the adult version of bullying. My daughter is 14 now, and I’m sorry to have to explain to her that some people just never grow up.

  • Second, no matter what anyone else calls them, I let people show me who they are. The TTP showed me they’re curious and intellectually honest people who love Texas. That’s enough for me!

• I’m seeing some criticism online and in community forums about the Year of the Patriot conference’s lineup of speakers and sessions. Some have called the topics, including the one on remigration, as racist or discriminatory to immigrants and nonwhite people. How do you respond to that concern?

  • People act as interest groups. We have to deal with that whether we want to or not. We can’t close our eyes and wish it was different. In my late teens/early twenties, I served as the Secretary Treasurer of the Seattle branch of the Communist labor union, the IWW. To supplement my activism, I attended a lecture at the University of Washington by Selma James, wife of Trotskyite writer and activist CLR James on the subject of the recognition of women’s household work as paid work. A member of the audience asked her what she thought of “intersectionality” and James answered, “It doesn’t make sense to me. We’re supposed to unite the working class. Why would you divide it even further?”

  • This stuck with me: diversity is a deadly weakness for any kind of organized society whether it be a union, a social club, or a functioning nation.

  • When working in mainstream organized labor, I noticed that SEIU, the hospitality workers union, and UFCW, the grocery worker’s union, suffered the same problems when incorporating a labor force that did not speak English or assimilate. Business Insider later exposed diversity as a union busing tactic when they uncovered Whole Foods’ “heat map” which identified stores at risk of unionization. Their key metric was diversity. The more homogeneous a store, the more at risk it is to unionize.

  • The same applies to the nation. If we allow large numbers of other ethnic groups to immigrate into our country, they do not assimilate, they unfortunately self-segregate amongst each other instead. For example, Pew Research reveals only 33% of third-generation Hispanics in the US identify as American. These groups naturally have competing interests, and we are losing our national unity of purpose and identity.

  • Lastly, we love Swedes! We love the Dutch! And we love Americans. It would be a devastating loss to the world if these ethnic groups ceased to exist. I don’t want that. If that’s racist, so be it. I’d rather be racist and have a coherent civilization for my grandchildren than shirk my responsibilities for “good boy points.”

  • A humane, voluntary remigration strategy is the best way to ensure our national survival.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

Subscribe now

Introduced as the The Stop Citizenship Abuse and Misrepresentation Ac (S. 3674) and out before the Senate by Eric Schmitt of Missouri in January 2026, this long overdue piece of legislation seeks to expand civil denaturalization for naturalized U.S. citizens (we dare not call them Americans) who, within 10 years of gaining citizenship, defraud government programs (such as welfare or other benefits programs exceeding $10,000), affiliate with designated foreign terrorist organizations, or commit aggravated felonies or espionage.

In both the SCAM act itself and in the minds of most patriotic Americans, acts such as these serve as very obvious prima facie evidence that a naturalized citizen lacked the required good moral character, attachment to the Constitution, and a positive disposition toward the United States at the time of naturalization. The SCAM act seems to ensure that the citizenship of these foreigners can be revoked retroactively and accompanied by an expedited removal process so they do not linger as so many immigrants have been allowed to do by the immigration “system” of the past 50 years.

From a nationalist perspective, one that prioritizes the preservation of the historic American nation, its cultural core, rule of law, and the right of a nation to determine who joins its community, this bill is a major step towards correcting the post-1965 multicultural experiment that is straining the United States. The SCAM act begins to address the consequences of decades of immigration policy that treated citizenship as an administrative benefit rather than as the sacred trust which patriotic Americans hold it to be.

By now, tens of millions of Americans understand that the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler act) marked a deliberate break with America’s prior system of national origins quotas, which had favored immigrants from Europe who shared linguistic, cultural, and religious history with those of the American nation. For generations, really since the founding, the United States was peopled by Western European Christians who shared a common, Western Civilization with the settlers and revolutionaries who created our wonderful country.

Prior to 1964, very few people believed America was a “nation of immigrants.” The phrase was only popularized by John F. Kennedy’s essay, “Nation of Immigrants,” posthumously published that year after being commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (now known as the ADL).

JFK’s younger brother, Edward Kennedy, then the Chairman of the Senate subcommittee hearings on the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act promised in his opening remarks:

Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as critics seem to think. [Lawrence Auster, The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, page 11 1990, Monterey, Virginia, The Immigration Control Foundation]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Before 1965, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population had fallen to a historic low of about 4.7% by 1970. Today it stands near or above 16%, matching or exceeding historic peaks from the 1890s. The sources of immigrants shifted dramatically from Europe to Latin America, Asia, and Africa. European Christians fell sharply from roughly 90% of the entire immigrant population in the mid-1960s/1970 to around 10% today.

This was not organic evolution but a deliberate policy choice. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act, the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), and consecutive administrations’ choices not to enforce our borders against illegal immigrants has resulted from chain migration via family reunification, expansive refugee programs, and lax enforcement that appeared to prioritize volume (namely cheap labor that undercuts American workers) over selecting for ability to assimilate as Americans had been promised. The result has been the largest sustained demographic transformation in American history. A transformation that has overwhelmingly occurred within living memory and resulted in 95-97 million residents with post-1965 immigrant roots living in the United States today.

The consequences are visible in persistent patterns of incomplete or segmented assimilation. Some groups achieve rapid upward mobility and cultural convergence (think Japanese, Korean, or Albanian communities) while most others form parallel societies with the high welfare dependency highlighted by the work of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and others.

Social trust erodes in high-diversity settings, as documented in research by Robert Putnam and others. Identity politics flourishes, reframing American history and institutions through grievance rather than gratitude and continuity.

Nowhere is this failure more starkly illustrated than in certain refugee and chain-migration communities from failed or clan-based societies. The large Somali population in Minnesota (now composed mainly of naturalized citizens or their U.S.-born children) has become a popular case study. While many individuals may be law-abiding, the community as a whole has shown disproportionate involvement in organized welfare fraud schemes, including the Feeding Our Future scandal. Federal prosecutors charged dozens (the vast majority of Somali descent) in schemes siphoning hundreds of millions from child nutrition and other programs during the pandemic era, with some reports citing even larger totals across related frauds in housing, Medicaid, and autism services.

These were not isolated acts by desperate individuals. They involved coordinated exploitation of programs funded by American taxpayers, often enabled by officials hesitant to scrutinize “minority-owned” or immigrant-run entities for fear of racism accusations. This is the predictable outcome of mass migration and the resulting multiculturalism—where there is no assimilation pressure, national identity becomes subservient to ethnic identity. Those of us who still identify as “American” will be exploited.

The SCAM Act directly targets this phenomenon. By establishing that serious post-naturalization misconduct (especially fraud against the very government that granted them citizenship) constitutes evidence of prior misrepresentation, it makes revocation more feasible and most importantly, makes it retroactive. It closes loopholes that allowed individuals to game naturalization requirements and enjoy the benefits of citizenship while they demonstrated through actions that they never truly embraced the American nation.

This is common sense. Citizenship is not an unconditional right for anyone who arrives and waits the statutory period. It is a privilege extended to those who demonstrate they will strengthen, not burden or subvert, the nation. The bill restores a measure of accountability that the sheer scale and changed character of post-1965 immigration made necessary. It sends a deterrent signal: America will no longer serve as a permanent safe haven for those who view its institutions transactionally.

The bill starts with a Congressional Findings and Purpose (Sections 2–3).

The bill emphasizes traditional naturalization requirements: an applicant “must demonstrate…

It finds that some naturalized citizens have “viewed their new citizenship status as a purely administrative benefit” for personal gain, and that convictions for fraud, terrorist affiliation, or serious crimes demonstrate they lacked these qualities at the time of naturalization. It cites Supreme Court precedents affirming that citizenship obtained by fraud or without meeting requirements “is illegally procured” and revocable.

In section three the bill seems “to expand and clarify the grounds for the United States to pursue civil denaturalization proceedings against individuals who have proven, by defrauding a governmental program, affiliating with a foreign terrorist organization, or committing certain criminal offenses,”. In short, the bill states that those who would be denaturalized never met the conditions of gaining US citizenship in the first place.

Section four on Expanded Grounds and Procedures amends the INA in section 340 (§340) by allowing the Attorney General to initiate proceedings to denaturalized immigrants and adds new subsections to help in this pursuit;

• Terrorist affiliation (d)

• government fraud ≥$10,000 (e)

• aggravated felony/espionage (f) within 10 years

The legislation states that such acts

A fallback provision in the act (g) reduces the window to 5 years if the 10-year period is ruled unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the legislation clarified in no uncertain terms that revocation is retroactive and therefore “effective as of the original date... treated as void from the date on which it was issued”. The denaturalized immigrants become removable via expedited proceedings under INA §238, to quote: “regardless of (A) the person’s immigration status after denaturalization; and (B) the time that has elapsed since... naturalization.”

Critics, those who believe America is just a multicultural strip mall, have decried the act as harsh. Most patriotic Americans seem to see it as the minimum required to defend the unique privilege that is American citizenship, especially at a time when policy failures have already admitted millions whose assimilation has been incomplete or not occurred at all over multiple generations.

Still, the SCAM Act is narrow. It applies only to naturalized citizens for specific acts within a 10-year window (with a fallback to 5 years). It does not address birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, the ongoing flood of asylum claims and illegal entries, chain migration itself, or the broader policy architecture of the 1965 Act and subsequent expansions. The SCAM act alone cannot retroactively undo the demographic and cultural shifts already underway, but no piece of legislation can.

The SCAM Act is but one necessary step in the project to institute remigration and reclaim the American nation for the American people.

The broader nationalist approach would include (alongside the SCAM Act):

• Retroactive denaturalization beyond the ten-year time span. We know for example that the 1986 IRCA, known as the Reagan Amnesty, had a fraud rate as high as 70% according to several studies while a 2008 refugee family reunification program run by the State Department had a potential fraud rate of 80%.

• Denaturalizing the children of immigrants who committed fraud along with their parents, a.k.a. family reunification at home. (This would require a constitutional amendment, but that is already in public discussion after the disappointing Birthright Citizenship SCOTUS ruling.)

• Broad visa cancellation to refocus on the American labor force

• And, ultimately, a voluntary remigration program such as the one we illustrate here, or has been adopted by Sweden here.

The SCAM Act is hopefully one of many steps this congress can take toward re-asserting the American nation, not as a geographic expression or an economic zone, but as a people with a purpose.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Subscribe now

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

By Cyan Quinn

It has lately been fashionable to speak of the leveling of nations, of the disappearance of individual peoples in the melting pot of modern civilization… the disappearance of nations would impoverish us not less than if all men should become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its generalized personalities; the least among them has its own unique coloration and harbors within itself a unique facet of God’s design. —Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

This is an email inquiry sent to the True Texas Project’s Year of the Patriot Conference organizers. I think the sender is clearly writing in good faith, and there are probably many other Christians struggling with the same idea: How do we maintain the recognition of universal Christian humanity with an immigration policy that puts Americans first? So I’m publishing his question and my reply here for the benefit of others who are likely grappling with this same question.

He writes:

I really like Rush Limbaugh’s statement about American Exceptionalism. I own a copy of the first Rush Revere book, [Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims: Time-Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans] and it’s excellent! Rush’s statement about American Exceptionalism ought to be required reading in grade schools.

I clicked on the link to read the WPPI’s timeline on US Immigration law. I was rather shocked that it reads like a White Supremist rant. The laws listed all focus on limiting *legal* immigration based on race, not on character or criminal background. As Christians, we understand that God created one race: the human race. Ethnicities are merely different sets of physical characteristics common among regional gene pools, but all of these various characteristics descended from the same original DNA that God gave to Adam and Eve.

I have absolutely no issue with legal immigration from any nation or ethnic background, provided that the immigrants assimilate into our culture. My beef is with those who immigrate with no intention of assimilating (we call that “colonization”) and those who immigrate illegally. This timeline does not address either of those issues.

So I need to check out this White Papers Policy Institute to see who these people are. Maybe I have misjudged this timeline, or maybe not. But it bears looking into.

He wonders why we need to limit legal immigration for those who wish to assimilate (although we cannot always judge an immigrant’s genuine desires to immigrate, we can analyze the effects of immigration on the native population and the economy as we do here in regard to native-born wages, here in regard to taxation, and here in regard to welfare use and remittances).

However, this is what I see as his key question and the root of the struggle to make the moral case for remigration:

As Christians, how can we reconcile the desire to welcome all human beings, no matter where they come from, what they look like and what culture they practice, as brothers and sisters in Christ while rejecting some from our nation’s body politic?

First, American immigration policy does not reject the personhood of other peoples. It affirms that the purpose of the nation state is to serve the interests of its founding polity.

We can honor international human rights while also upholding the fact that a nation exists to serve the people who created it. (i.e., “to ourselves and our posterity.”)

When the asker reflects on American Exceptionalism, he is invoking the idea of Civic Nationalism. This idea that a nation is an idea not a people, has two fundamental flaws:

What exactly is American Exceptionalism?

As described by Rush Limbaugh in the introduction to Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims it is:

American Exceptionalism and greatness means that America is special because it is different from all other countries in history. It is a land built on true freedom and individual liberty and it defends both around the world. The role of the United States is to encourage individuals to be the best that they can be, to try to improve their lives, reach their goals, and make their dreams come true. In most parts of the world, dreams never become more than dreams…

Our country is the first country ever to be founded on the principle that all human beings are created as free people. The Founders of this phenomenal country believed all people were born to be free as individuals. And so, they established a government and leadership that recognized and established this for the first time ever in the world! America is a place where the individual person serves himself and his family, not the king, or ruling class, or government.

Rush Limbaugh is not the first to describe America in this way. In 1931, historian James Truslow Adams coined the term “American Dream” in The Epic of America and defined it as “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement.” He further clarified, “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

This distinction “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages,” but that of a new system of virtue that prioritizes meritocracy over aristocracy is important.

We have to understand that immigrating to America does not mean the immigrants automatically accept this set of values. Most do not forfeit their identity upon immigrating to America. Most view America as an economic zone while preferring their own culture. This is the norm. And from the immigrant’s perspective, why shouldn’t it be? Why should we expect them to reject their own culture, history, ancestry, and traditions in order to assimilate to ours?

Furthermore, is assimilation of large groups even possible?

Thanks to recent developments in scientific research, we now know that political ideology is about 50% heritable. That’s quite significant. To expect assimilation from dramatically different cultures into ours that values freedom, self-employment, meritocracy, the nuclear family, and other American principles is unrealistic and unsustainable.

Moreover, should they? Our Remigration platform recognizes that many people who gained citizenship may still, after generations, feel out of place. It offers voluntary incentives for people who wish to return to their ancestral homelands. This BBC Documentary covers the stories of third-generation Senegalese immigrants in France who are planning their return to Senegal, even without cash assistance. A Monmouth University poll revealed that 45% of people of color in the United States would leave if given the opportunity to do so. We suggest offering the necessary resources.

Of course there are those few immigrants that do assimilate (which is why there are always exceptions (see Remigration and the Complexity of Communities), but public policy is necessarily built on generalizations based on observable reality.

Rather than capitulating to the Left and rejecting the views of the founders and the immigration policies that protected the way of life that gave birth to American Exceptionalism, we can instead embrace it and affirm our national identity.

In order for Limbaugh’s American Exceptionalism to have a future, Americans need to have a future.

Limbaugh is correct. When America flourishes, the whole world flourishes with us.

At White Papers, we refuse to close our eyes to science, discovery, and the beauty of biological diversity. We accept nature as God created it and we have the honor and responsibility to boldly craft our future for, yes, us and our posterity.

Further reading:

• Who is an American? 200 Years of America and 50 Years of Multicultural Madness

• The Pot that Refuses to Melt

• Remigration and the Complexity of Communities

• Response to Vivek Ramaswamy

• The American Repatriation Policy Platform

• Remittances: The U.S. Is Not the World’s Cash Cow

• The Party That Forgot Its Base

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Subscribe now

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

In 1976, when America celebrated its Bicentennial, the United States was still a recognizable continuation of the nation forged by its founders and built by generations of European settlers, their descendants, and earlier waves of overwhelmingly Western, overwhelmingly Christian, immigrants who assimilated into the American nation within two generations. The American population was as it had been since before the nation declared independence in 1776: overwhelmingly European in heritage and overwhelmingly English in culture. America’s English language, Protestant faith, small-government preference, and deep-rooted regional cultures (New England Yankees, Appalachian Scots-Irish, Midwestern Germans and Scandinavians, Southern traditions, and Western pioneers) all derived from European settlers.

This heritage stood alongside and heavily influenced other American communities. The long-established African American communities descended from slaves for the most part adopted this common American culture while also contributing to American uniqueness. On a regional scale, Hispanic communities had pre-annexation roots in places like New Mexico, Texas, and California.

If we look at the 1970 Census (the data closest to the bicentennial year), we can see that America looked much like it did in 1776. The population 203.4 million and the demographic picture was as follows:

• 83.4% White/European - 85.8% of whom were native-born

• 11% African/Black – 98.9% of whom were native-born

• 4.4% Hispanic – 80.1% of whom were native-born

• 0.7% Asian – only 35% of whom were native-born

• American Indians at 0.4% of the population – 98% or more of whom were native-born

The people of America were by no means “diverse.”

The America of 2026 is unrecognizable. Our last 50 years of immigration policy have totally transformed the original American nation and displaced its regional communities. As a result of post-1965 immigration policy, America is now indeed “diverse.” This new multicultural nation is facing new problems: cultural fragmentation, straining institutions in large part due to the economic dependence of non-Western groups, and rapidly fading regional identities.

In 1970 (close to 1976), the foreign-born share hit a record low of about 4.7%. By 2024, it reached around 16% (over 55 million people) according to the Center for Immigration Studies. The foreign-born population has more than tripled, with immigrants and their descendants accounting for the majority of population growth since 1965. There is no question that post-1965 arrivals and their children and grandchildren number in the tens of millions have reshaped the country. White Papers estimates that of the roughly 96 million people in the United States today, about 28% of the current American population are the descendants of post-1965 immigrants and therefore not part of the historic American nation. Furthermore, the Pew Research Center estimates that without post-1965 immigration, the U.S. would be roughly 75% White, 14% Black, and 8% Hispanic today. Instead, the foreign-born population diversified dramatically toward Latin America and Asia.

As of the 2024 American Community Survey (data collected by the Census Bureau), the United States has roughly 340-355 million residents and the demographic composition is:

• 56% White/European – 94% of whom are native-born and 90% of whom have deep inter-generational roots.

• 12.6% African/Black – 12% of whom are foreign-born (a 990% increase from 1970).

• 20% Hispanic – 33% of whom are foreign-born (a 13 point increase from 1970).

• 7% Asian – 65% of whom are foreign-born.

Second-generation immigrants (U.S.-born children of post-1965 arrivals) have grown significantly, forming a large cohort alongside the foreign-born. This post-1965-descended population, combined with higher fertility in some groups initially, drove much of the demographic shift and caused huge stretches of American cities, states, and regions to feel alien to those who once lived there. Today, more than 12% of all people living in the United States are second-generation immigrants and this share is only increasing.

Among core American demographics, the second-generation share is as follows (we created estimates where necessary):

• 
  White/European Americans: Roughly 6% are second-generation immigrants.

• African/Black: Roughly 10-12% are second-generation immigrants (Meaning that nearly a quarter of the Black population of the United States are not Historic Black Americans but instead are immigrants and their descendants.)

• Hispanics: 33-35% are second generation immigrants

• Roughly 66% of the Hispanic population of the US are either foreign-born immigrants or their children. (Americans did not ask for such huge levels of immigration from Latin America!)

• Asians: 25-30% are second generation immigrants

At or near 90% of the Asian population of the United States (which now exceeds 24 million) are recent immigrants and their children. Americans did not vote to import Asia into the country wholesale.

As a result of these incredible levels of mass immigration, the non-Hispanic White share of the American population share has fallen steadily. At the state level, many have seen sharp drops in White majorities, especially in the West and South. Major cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Houston have transformed, with Whites often a minority amid rapid diversification. At one time, all of these cities were not only overwhelmingly White American, but had been founded by and for White Americans and their descendants (see: “Ourselves and our Posterity”).

These changes have made 2026 America feel truly alien in many locales. Regional cultures have been diluted; English proficiency and shared norms vary more widely; religious landscapes shifted; and social trust metrics (per studies like Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone) declined. Dysfunction in governance, education, crime in some urban areas, and polarization reflects these pressures, contrasting starkly to the more unified, recognizable 1976 America.

The 1965 Immigration Act was a dramatic departure from immigration law that had favored the founding demographic mix since the Naturalization Act of 1790, our very first immigration law which permitted citizenship only to (and after a wait period of two years) “white persons of good character.”

Later, the naturalization Acts of 1795 and 1798 increased the required residency to 5, then 14 years respectively.

Naturalization then only expanded to African Americans with the 14th Amendment and the 1870 Naturalization Act, but this was intended only for freed slaves, NOT African immigrants.

The Page Act of 1875 explicitly listed Asian immigration as undesirable, and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 tried to end it entirely. In fact, Congress was so determined to bar non-Western immigration that it overrode presidential veto in 1917 to pass the Immigration Act of 1917 which implemented the Asiatic Barred Zone (including India) and enforced a literacy test.

The Supreme Court later ruled in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind that Indians were not white and therefore ineligible to become US citizens. America then retroactively denaturalized many Indians between 1923 - 1927.

Indians were not the only concern, however. In 1921, Americans passed the Emergency Quota Act because there were even too many European immigrants after WWI, specifically Eastern and Southern Europeans.

Finally in 1924, the Johnson-Reed Act established quotas that gave 98% of immigration places to Europeans favoring Western Europeans (72% to Brits, Germans, Irish, and Dutch).

The 1965 Hart-Celler Act was a dramatic departure from American Immigration Law and was passed via deliberate deception. The chair of the Senate subcommittee hearings, Edward Kennedy, promised “the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.” That’s exactly the opposite of what happened.

Moreover, these groups are not assimilating. For example, the Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation 2002 National Survey of Latinos, found that 88% of Hispanics in the country preferred to use their country of their ancestors to describe themselves (Cuban, Mexican, etc.) while just 53% were likely to ever use the term “American” to describe themselves.

At this time, the Hispanic population was only about 39 million. This same survey found that when asked to pick a “first or only term” to identify themselves, only 21% of Hispanics chose the term “American.” Even among American-born Hispanics, the share of chose “American” was only 46%. Pew would go on to repeat this survey several times.

By 2009, when the Hispanic population reached 49 million, Pew found that 24% of young Hispanics described themselves as “Americans” first while 52% preferred their country of ancestral origin. 20% preferred the terms “Hispanic” or “Latino.” Among second-generation (American born) Hispanics, the share who identified as “American” first rose to 33%. Among third-generation Hispanics, the “America:” first share rose to 50%. This was very modest progress that appeared to hold steady when Pew ran the survey again in 2013. The 2013 data showed 23% of Hispanics most often described themselves as “American,” including 42% of American-born Hispanics. Among second-generation Hispanics, 30% identified as “American.” And among the third-generation, 59% identified most often as “American.”

These incredibly modest levels of integration have since given way to a near total collapse. Between 2009 and 2024 the Hispanic population rose by another 20 million, reaching 68 million. By 2020, the Pew data showed integration had been thrown in reverse. As of 2020, only 14% of Hispanics identified as American. Just 22% of second-generation and 33% of first-generation Hispanics primarily identified as “American.” Furthermore, 44% of Hispanics said they feel “very different” from a typical American. Less detailed data from 2024 shows that identification as “American” remains low among Hispanics, at just 17%.

There was a clear reversal in national identity trends despite efforts to grant citizenship. In 2023, more than 81% of Hispanics were American citizens—a seven-point increase from 2010. It is clear that citizenship is not inspiring American identity.

Hispanics are not unique in this integration failure. Among Asians in the United States, whose population has increased from 980,000 in 1965 to 26 million as of 2024 (and a majority of whom are foreign-born), integration is not substantially better than among the Hispanic population. A 2023 Pew survey found that only 10% identify “American” and 16% identify as “Asian American.”

Only 53% of Asians overall in the United States would consider themselves to be typical Americans.

Furthermore, large shares of these populations feel such a lack of connection to the United States that many want to leave. A March 2024 Monmouth University poll found that 45% of Americans of Color would resettle in another country if “free to do so.” And a February 2025 Harris poll found that 61% of Hispanics and 57% of African Americans have considered leaving the country in the next two years. Among Asians, a 2023 Pew survey found that 26% of Asians, including 30% of those born abroad and 14% born in the United States, would move to their ancestral homeland.

America has never before had such large populations of culturally, ethnically, and religiously disparate foreigners; nor has this country ever attempted to integrate such a large volume of people. These populations are so large that they are able to maintain separate communities and institutions and agitate for their specific ethnic interests (see: Hispanic interest group La Raza, literally translated: “The Race”) rather than adopting the national interests of the United States.

At this time of reflection, the American people have a choice to make, and it is a serious one:

Will America exist in the year 300? Or will we become a balkanized landscape of hyphenated “Americans” with competing foreign interests?

The choice is ours.

France’s Arch of Triumph at sunset. Courtesy of Constant Loubier on Unsplash.

Director’s Note: “Now is not the time for mourning. Now is the time for war.”

These are the words of a mother demanding justice for her 17-year-old son. Louis, a French teen, was murdered with “unspeakable” violence by men of Tunisian or North African ethnic origin.

Mainstream media outlets present the goalpost for protest as whether or not there is a “racial motive.” I would not be surprised if there was as in this case, or this one, or this one.

But here is what matters:

1. All migrant crime is preventable crime. The state never had to let them in.

2. Jordan Bardella of the National Party called the violence “unimaginable.” This level of cruelty is rare for our countries. Our boys and girls don’t play the knockout game or behead people on the street.

I’ve said this many times before: I agree and amplify Professor David Betz’s analysis that Civil War has come to the West. But it doesn’t have to be this way. A responsible state would immediately implement a policy of remigration. It must do so before it’s too late.

***

A French Immigration Moratorium Won’t Be Enough. Only Remigration Works!

J.M. Bright

One cannot take a cursory survey of the West and ponder the current predicament of our family of nations without a profound sense of melancholy. Every nation West of Poland suffers from the disease of multiculturalism and the negative externalities of mass immigration. If I look to my South across the English Channel to France, that land of cathedrals and châteaux, of Cartesian clarity and Gallic might, I see the same situation I face here in England, or which I have witnessed on my travels to Sweden, Germany, The United States, and Australia. The French are being rapidly replaced by the masses of the third world and the poor of Eastern Europe. This reality is causing the same rise in nationalist sentiment in France as it is everywhere else in the West. It is the reason that Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (formerly the National Front) is leading both first and second round polling for the 2027 French presidential election. Defenders of the status quo have taken notice and begun to panic in the face of the death of their liberal despotism.

As part of this panic, the current French Justice Minister, one Mr. Gérald Darmanin, has called for a three year moratorium on legal immigration to France. This would include limiting family reunification, asylum seekers, and employment-based immigration from outside of Europe. Darmanin put out this call for a moratorium in May of 2026, and while it does not appear the French government has moved to implement the minister’s proposal, it does illuminate the desperation of the European ruling class and the fact that an immigration moratorium will simply not be enough to rescue France or the West. Only remigration will.

This is not to nay-say immigration moratoriums! From a nationalist perspective, the perspective that holds dear the continuity of the native French people and broader Western heritage, such a measure is not merely prudent but essential. We cannot clean up the mess if the tap has not been shut and the flow ceased. Most importantly, these policy proposals are not born of rancor, but of a sober recognition that peoples, like families, have a right to maintain their character, their traditions, and their demographic integrity across the generations. Unchecked mass immigration from profoundly dissimilar civilisations is eroding the peace, prosperity, and stability of France and the West.

The figures from France’s own statistical agencies paint a portrait of quiet transformation. According to INSEE, the French national statistics institute, some 13.8% of France’s population in 2024 consisted of immigrants (foreign-born individuals). More tellingly, the composition of births reveals the pace of change. In recent data, only about 65.9% of newborns had two parents born in France, with 19% having two foreign-born parents and a further 15.2% had just one French parent. Net migration has become the primary driver of population growth, with natural increase (births minus deaths) stagnating or turning negative in many areas. In 2023, some 347,000 immigrants arrived, with Africa as the leading continent of origin at 45%. Earlier patterns showed a more balanced inflow from Europe, but non-European sources, particularly from the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa, now predominate. OECD and INSEE data confirm that France received around 294,000 long-term immigrants in 2022, contributing significantly to overall numbers.

Fertility patterns compound the issue. Native French women hover near or below replacement level (around 1.8 or lower in recent estimates for the core population), while immigrant women, particularly from higher-fertility regions, maintain elevated rates, at least in the first generation. Though second-generation fertility converges somewhat, the sheer volume of inflows ensures a sustained demographic shift. As one analysis notes, more than 30% of births now involve at least one parent born outside the EU.

Such trends are not unique to France. Across the West, from the United Kingdom to Sweden, similar patterns of demographic replacement unfold, driven by sub-replacement fertility among natives (typically 1.3–1.8) and high immigration. The result is a gradual but inexorable alteration of the human stock that built these societies their laws, mores, artistic genius, and social trust.

With these immigration figures numbers in mind, it comes as no surprise that 12% of the French population are second-generation immigrants. Another 10% are third-generation immigrants born to the children of the original immigrant generation to the country. The second generation of immigrants represents roughly 8 million individuals, while the third generation is composed of roughly 4.8 million people, according to INSEE.

Of these 12.8 million second-generation immigrants and beyond, roughly 4.78 million are known to be non-European, according to the Institut national d’études démographiques (INED).

Overall, White Papers estimates that 70-72% of the French population are native French men and women while the remaining 30% are a mix of other Europeans and non-Europeans, none of whom have a concrete claim to the homeland of the French. And while an immigration moratorium will certainly stem the tide of change, it will not reverse the replacement of the native French.

After all, for decades the proponents of open borders often spoke in abstractions: “diversity is our strength” or they have preached about the economic necessities of importing masses of alien individuals. By now, most in the West are recognizing that integration has faltered, particularly with inflows from culturally distant regions. High unemployment among certain immigrant groups, residential segregation, parallel societies, and periodic outbursts of unrest in the ‘banlieues’ speak to a failure of assimilation on a scale most people living outside multicultural areas can barely comprehend.

A moratorium on legal immigration, as proposed, with sensible exceptions for genuine refugees such as Ukrainians and perhaps intra-European movement within the bounds of shared civilisation, would afford breathing space to the beleaguered French, but it would not stop their replacement. France must have remigration.

According to White Papers’s own research on the topic, more than 4.3 million non-Western individuals in France could be removed from the country by simply refusing to renew their visas upon expiration. Along with these adult immigrants, a further 2.5-3 million non-French children (mostly Tunisians, Moroccans, and Algerians), would be expected to depart with them. After these steps the French would need to move onto denaturalisation under both their current legal structures and by expanding the grounds to do so.

France has an extremely broad set of regulations and laws which enable the Council of State to denaturalize those who:

1. Undermine the fundamental interest of France

2. Lie or commit fraud in the acquisition of their nationality

3. Interfere with the public administration of France and the individual freedoms of Frenchmen

4. Served in a foreign government’s public or armed services

These options give a nationalist French administration, should one arise in the coming years, ample room to begin denaturalizing those non-Europeans who pose a threat to the state and to begin deporting them back to their ancestral homelands.

These former citizens too would have to take their family members and underage children with them when they departed France after being denaturalized, once again radically reducing the non-White/non-European population of the country.

And of course the French must consider voluntary remigration: meaning, paying many millions of non-Western individuals who are unhappy with life in France, unwilling to integrate, but whom are addicted to its lavish benefits system to leave the country and establish new lives abroad in either their own homelands or third-party states willing to take them. White Papers’s own estimates show that as many as 4 million people in France would be tempted by a 75,000 Euro payment to leave the country and return to their own ancestral homes. (And this is more affordable than the current welfare drain.)

Of all Western countries, the French are perhaps the most philosophically and culturally ready for remigration behind only the Americans (who are already dabbling in the practice under the Trump administration). France must of course implement an immigration moratorium, but that is only one step in the process that inevitably leads to either remigration or the end of French civilization.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

Trump vs. Barbara, The Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship seems to say that birth tourism can be banned, and people on visitors, visas, or temporary business visas may not get automatic citizenship for any children born during their stay in the United States, but illegal immigrants, on the other hand, DO get citizenship for babies born during their illegal occupation of the US. These babies are frequently known as “anchor babies“ because they make it harder for the parents to be deported.

According to Wikipedia,

The representative plaintiff, Barbara, a Honduran citizen, is only known by her first name because she fears for her and her family's safety.

But of course, the suit is actually being brought by tax-exempt NGOs like the ACLU and Casa de Maryland, which means that to a certain extent it’s been being paid for by your tax dollars.

This litigation has been going on for some time. I wrote about it here in January 2025.

When we’re talking about illegal immigrants, we’re talking about people who committed a crime to get into the US, and have continued to commit crimes (working illegally, tax fraud, identity theft) to stay in the US.

In an article here, I talked about illegals bringing their children across the border, and how unusual it is, in any other context, to bring a baby with you to a crime scene.

It’s even more unusual to stay on a crime scene long enough to give birth there—but illegals do it all the time.

Birth tourism on the other hand is practically not illegal. It’s big business.

This lady, for example, was pictured in an Istanbul news article about Turkish women traveling to America to give birth.

The Hürriyet Daily News [Istanbul] wrote on March 12, 2010

“With more Turkish parents wanting their child to be born in the US, tourism companies are starting to offer ‘birth tourism’ packages to US cities. Many women say giving birth in the US has benefits including cheaper education and fewer visa worries....

“According to tourism expert Gürkan Boztepe and media sources, 12,000 Turkish children have been born in the U.S. since 2003.The numbers are significant enough to draw the attention of tourism companies and inspire them to pursue ‘birth tourism.’...

The Turkish women would buy a vacation package that would allow them to stay three or four months—you can’t fly from Turkey to New York if you’re 8 1/2 months pregnant for both airline and immigration reasons.

One of the places you could stay was a Turkish-owned hotel called the Marmara Manhattan, named after Turkey’s inland Sea of Marmara.

It cost about $45,000 to stay there until the child was born—and I don’t know how the hospital expenses were paid, but it may have been legitimately paid by the parents, because these are fairly well off people in comparison to illegals, ALL of whose medical expenses are paid by the taxpayer.

The idea is to go back to Turkey with the infant and his American birth certificate, leaving Junior in a position, when full grown, to come “back” to the US to live and work—and possibly sponsor his parents’ immigration.

There are birth tourism hotels all over America, advertised on the internet and in Chinese papers.

In 2008, Steve Sailer found a website called ChineseBabyCare dot com, no longer live, but probably still in business under another name, which listed eight benefits to a well-off Chinese family having their child born on American soil.

You can read Steve’s full article here, but while a lot of the eight benefits deal with college, free education, and financial aid for college ()hence the girl in the academic gown above) the seventh and eighth were:

7. Your child’s future with the U.S. Social Security card, to enjoy various social welfare measures, the United States and medical equipment

Self-explanatory, I hope (or fear).

ChineseBabyCare.com’s eighth point:

8. Your children face the future place of residence if the war, the United States citizenship are entitled to protect the evacuation of U.S. government

For example, if your Chinese kid is working for a Chinese oil company in some Middle Eastern oil country, and suddenly the place turns into a real life Mad Max movie, the Pentagon will airlift him out—gratis!

Someone who worked in the US Diplomatic Service told me that while working in a Middle Eastern country, he had the job of keeping up lists of American citizens who might need evacuation, and he asked a senior employee why there were so many Americans scattered around rural areas of said primitive country, and the older man told him “They’re not actually Americans, they’re locals who have somehow acquired American citizenship.”

The poster boy for not giving the children of foreign visitors American citizenship is this man.

Wikipedia says

Anwar Al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S., in 1971 to parents from Yemen. Growing up partly in the United States and partly in Yemen, he attended various U.S. universities in the 1990s and early 2000s.

After which he joined Al Qaeda outside the United States, and became the first “U.S. citizen to be targeted and assassinated by a U.S. government drone strike.

But as Steve Sailer pointed out above, if he hadn’t done that it would’ve been America’s responsibility to rescue him from Yemen or wherever.

All “birthright citizenship” needs to be abolished—stopping birth tourism would be a good start.

James Fulford has been writing about the national question for over 20 years, mostly for VDARE.com, more recently for WhitePapers. Subscribe to his personal Substack here.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

By Lucy White

With the Boriswave, we often hear figures such as, “net migration was 906,000 in 2023” and “net migration was 729,000 in 2024.” However, what we do not hear, and what is not discussed enough, is the fact that net migration is those who arrived minus those who left, equals those who stayed. Hence, it is more important to understand who is coming into the country and who is leaving. Disastrously, the reality is that millions of non-Western migrants are arriving, while Brits and Europeans are leaving.

Case study: UK long-term migration in the year ending June 2024

Who arrived?

In 2024, a total of 1.2 million migrants came legally to the UK long-term. (Long-term refers to people entering or leaving the UK for at least 12 months.)The key question is, where did these migrants come from?

According to the Office for National Statistics report, 1,034,000 of them, which is 86% of the total, came from “non-EU countries.” However, “non-EU countries” has become synonymous to “third world countries” when it comes to immigration into the UK.

This is because the top five nationalities arriving to the UK in 2024 were as follows:

• Indians (240,000)

• Nigerians (120,000)

• Pakistanis (101,000)

• Chinese (78,000)

• Zimbabwean (36,000)

These 5 countries alone accounted for 45% of total immigration into the UK in 2024.

By contrast, only 58,000 Brits and 116,000 Europeans came to the UK in 2024, which was 5% and 9% of total immigration, respectively.

Not forgetting illegal migration

While 1,034,000 non-EU (non-Western ) migrants came to the UK legally, we must not forget those who arrived illegally. A total of 38,784 illegal migrants were detected entering the UK in the year ending June 2024. It is important to note that this figure only includes the illegal migrants who were recorded; there are likely to be many, many more. The top nationalities of illegal migrants that year were from Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan, Turkey (all Muslim countries), as well as Vietnam, Albania, India and Sri Lanka.

Who left?

In 2024, a total of 479,000 people emigrated from the UK. The majority of people who left were Brits and Europeans, accounting for 60% of the total. 79,000 Brits left (16%), and 211,000 Europeans left (44%). In contrast, 189,000 non-EU migrants left, which was 40% of the total.

Who stayed?

In 2024, net migration was 729,000 people. Shockingly, there was net negative migration from both Brits and Europeans. While 58,000 Brits arrived, 79,000 Brits left, meaning that overall, there were 21,000 fewer Brits in the UK. Similarly, while 116,000 Europeans arrived, 211,000 Europeans left, hence there were 95,000 fewer Europeans in the UK.

A key consideration is, if there was net negative migration of both Brits and Europeans, how was the overall net migration still 721,000? This figure was entirely dominated by non-EU migrants.

While 1,034,000 non-EU migrants arrived, only 189,000 non-EU migrants left. Overall, an additional 845,000 non-EU (mostly third world) migrants stayed in the UK in 2024.

Therefore, net migration was, in essence, entirely comprised of non-EU (non-Western) migrants in 2024.

Implications

While there was a total of 116,000 fewer rits and their fellow European neighbours in the UK in 2024, there was an additional 845,000 non-EU migrants, 86% of whom were from non-Western countries.

Importing hundreds of thousands of third world migrants into the UK has profound implications on the country, for a nation is its people. A nation cannot be the same if the Brits and their European neighbours who form Western civilization are replaced by aliens from entirely different cultures.

Depth of the problem—they cannot stay here forever.

The current problem is that migrants who arrived on a visa have a clear route to British Citizenship. After living in the UK for 5 continuous years on a work visa, migrants can apply to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). ILR grants foreign nationals the right to live, work and study in the UK without any time limits, along with access to welfare benefits and healthcare. Just 12 months are receiving ILR, foreign nationals can apply for British citizenship, which would allow them to stay forever.

There should not be a clear route from visas to British Citizenship.

Visas—> Indefinite Leave to Remain —> British Citizenship

Unfortunately, the Government hands out British citizenship like confetti, with a total of 269,621 citizenships handed out in 2024, equating to an average of 739 a day. The top three nationalities receiving British Citizenships were Indians (24,456), Pakistanis (22,611) and Nigerians (13,083).

Solutions

The Boriswave must be reversed with urgency. To reverse the Boriswave, migrants should leave when their visas expire or are revoked. Indefinite Leave to Remain should be abolished because we simply cannot afford to spend billions of pounds granting access to our entire welfare system for millions of new migrants. Moreover, we must stop granting British citizenship to migrants who come from alien cultures; many citizenships should be stripped, too. In a nutshell, approximately 5.5 million migrants, predominately from non-Western countries, have arrived in the UK since 2021. This was a terrible mistake made by incompetent government policies, which must be reversed as soon as possible

.

It is not enough to simply stop immigration with zero net migration. The UK must embrace Remigration with net negative migration of non-EU (non-Western) migrants. If millions of non-Western migrants arrived in such a short time, millions can leave too.

Read our British Remigration Policy Platform Here

Lucy White proudly serves her country as our UK Policy Fellow focusing on policies for Remigration and Demographic Security in Great Britain. She is a Public Policy Graduate from the University of Cambridge.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

This is the opening scene of The Hurt Locker, a 2008 film in which the protagonist is part of a three-man bomb disposal squad in Iraq.

98% of Explosive Ordinance Disposal technicians are men. 77-81% are White men specifically.

We pathologize masculinity, yet masculinity is the very quality that is what leads men to put their lives on the line for perfect strangers every day.

Likewise, 93% of garbage truck drivers are men. Yet we don’t hear demands to diversify this section of the workforce.

Our men are in trouble. In America, White males who make up 31% of the population account for almost 70% of suicides in America —nearly 4 times the rate of women.

In the UK, 74% of suicides are men. Whites made up 95% of those suicide deaths. Most of these men are between 40-50 and have difficulty with employment or are separated or divorced.

Also in the UK, 77% of men have suffered with symptoms of common mental health conditions such as anxiety, stress, or depression yet 40% of men have never talked about their mental health to anyone.

These don’t have to be simple grim statistics. We can actively create a policy environment that encourages male happiness by celebrating healthy masculinity and family formation.

We can start by introducing these policy priorities:

1. Start by prioritizing the 49.81 million prime working-age men who are currently unemployed, under-employed, or not otherwise in the labor force. Eliminate diversity initiatives that promote women in policing, firefighting, and search and rescue solely for the sake of “equity.” Female officers are regularly unable to control male suspects as women have barely 50% of the upper body strength and 60% of the lower body strength of men. This isn’t only a matter of effectiveness and security, but women want this too. Despite decades of “She can do it!” propaganda for girls, a 2022 study found protective men have much higher desirability in the eyes of women. She can do it, but only if she has to.

2. Restore all-male social spaces. According to the Survey Center on American Life, in 1990, 55% of men could claim six or more close friends. Only 3% said they had no friends. Now, only 27% of men say they have six or more close friends and a shocking 15% claim no close friends.

Relating to the former statistic, networking through friendship and civic groups is the most important factor in job-hunting. Yet men’s spaces are dwindling. For example, the Boy Scouts of America allowed girls to join in 2018 and then lost half its membership between 2019 – 2021.

3. Encourage marriage and fertility. Married men are healthier both mentally and physically than unmarried men. Married men survive twice as long when they have debilitating diseases and earn significantly more than unmarried men. This works well for women too. Married mothers report the highest life satisfaction of all women. Lastly, understanding fertility should be a mandatory part of sex education. 1 in 5 American women are unaware that age affects their fertility. According to the National Survey of Family Growth 1 in 7 women in the U.S. have trouble getting pregnant or sustaining a pregnancy.

4. Promote a breadwinner economy through remigration. Masculine men want jobs—more importantly jobs that sustain a family. Both men and women still prefer men to be the “breadwinners” in marriage. According to a 2019 study by Dr. Joanna Sydra, male stress levels rise if their female partner earns more than 40% of the household income. Women want men who have jobs that can support them and their children. 56% of women with children would prefer to be stay-at-home mothers. The best way to do this immediately is through remigration. Immigration dramatically depresses wages of the native-born and since 1980, eviscerated the middle class. We can start restoring living wage jobs by reversing the trend.

A nation is only as strong as its families, and strong men make strong families. As a civilization, we should cherish them as they cherish us. Prioritize their employment, encourage marriage, and celebrate masculinity.

More on Masculinity, Marriage, & Family from White Papers:

• Remaking Men: Nationalist Policymaking for the Future of Masculinity

• Nationalist Policymaking and Women

• A Foundation of Families

• The Great American Worker

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

By Cyan Quinn

Today is the birthday of Enoch Powell, the British statesman famous for his Rivers of Blood speech.

His speech at Birmingham earned its colloquial name from this line “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.” This is a reference to the Aeneid where the hero, Aeneas consults with Cumaen Sybil, asking her what the future holds.

“Well isn’t that a bit dramatic?” you might ask? But after witnessing the attempted beheading in Belfast and unrest that followed, is this really an exaggeration?

Last Tuesday, a Sudanese migrant who had been granted asylum attempted to behead an Irishman in the street with a Stanley knife. If you can stomach it, you can see the graphic footage here.

It seems prescient then to take a somber moment to revisit Powell’s warning and notice what has in fact already come to pass so we can craft our future more responsibly.

In his speech, Powell uses vocabulary that to modern sensibilities would seem uncouth (we no longer refer to Blacks as Negroes for example—but it was the polite term in 1968). Even he recognizes that some of the statements of his constituency are impolite, but are also nonetheless genuine, honest, human concerns with a political solution. We all ought to be mature enough to look beyond antiquated language and come to grips with his prediction and what is actually going on today– the replacement of Britons with foreigners and the social turmoil that comes with it.

Powell begins:

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

To avoid naming something we’re uncomfortable with is a natural human inclination. Take the bear for example, early Germanic hunters believed that speaking the beast’s name would summon one. They used it so infrequently that they lost the word, and today, the word we use instead, bēre, literally just means “brown one.”

We do the same with migrants and crime. If you don’t speak of the crimes immigrants commit, do they exist?

Even worse, God forbid people consider why it is that in incidents of interracial violence, the perpetrator is Black and the victim is White in 85.5% of the time according to a detailed study by Rachel Morgan (2015) for the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012-15.

Powell continues:

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said:

“If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

This is true. Today, Enoch Powell would probably be worried about being imprisoned for incitement of racial hatred. In recent years, the UK has banned people from entering who even mention demographics at all such as the Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek.

Moreover, although perhaps crudely put, his constituent has been proven right in the sense that anti-White discrimination is prevalent (Jeremy Carl’s The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart provides an incredible overview of this modern development, but for many, reading headlines is enough.) One need only to look at South Africa to see what waits for us when Europeans become a minority in their own countries.

Nonetheless, regardless of social propriety, as one of the last decent and responsible statesmen, Powell presses on:

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

The most recent figure from the UK Office for National Statistics is actually 13.1 million.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

While Greater London is still majority White British as of the last census at 53.8%, Manchester’s White British population is only 49%, Luton’s is 45.2%, Birmingham is 48.6%, and Slough, next door to Windsor Castle, is only 36% White British.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

These evils to be prevented or minimized include the aforementioned beheading attempt, or the murder of Henry Nowak for example.

Powell spends some time discussing the specific numbers of legal immigrants entering the country and then describes his solution:

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Only 58 years later are we finally seeing the popularization and development of the idea of Remigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

Today, using current polling data, we estimate that roughly half of foreign born would voluntarily remigrate if they had the resources to do so (and we propose how here.) For example, a Word on the Curb survey found that 66% of ethnically non-British aged 16-34 in the UK were considering or actively planning on leaving.

After sharing the concerns of his constituents, Powell describes how the ethnic lobby can sow division within a country and naturally breeds identity politics of all varieties. His example of the Sikhs is especially harrowing after the murder of Henry Nowak.

‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

…Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Henry Nowak, Iryna Zarutska, Cannon Hinnant, the Bataclan massacre, the Nice Truck attack, and Christmas market attacks—what more do we have to endure before we are willing to name the bear?

To refuse to do so is indeed a great betrayal and would earn “the curses of those who come after,” if our posterity will exist at all.

• Read the unabridged speech here.

• Review our British Remigration Policy Platform

• The American Repatriation Policy Platform

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

The Immigration Act of 1965 abolished the National Origins quotas of the 1924 Act, which had favored European immigrants. As a result, America has had a flood of non-European immigrants…and Europeans were in effect discriminated against for Visas.

In 1990, the late Teddy Kennedy instituted the “Diversity Visa Lottery” with the specific intention of allowing more Irish immigrants to the US.

Since then, it’s been a source of many overly diverse immigrants, some of whom were terrorists or mass murderers. Recently the Trump Administration paused it after a diverse guy from Portugal, Cláudio Manuel Neves Valente, killed two students and wounded nine other students at Brown University.

This is not the first time something like this has happened:

As Kristi Noem writes above

In 2017, President Trump fought to end this program, following the devastating NYC truck ramming by an ISIS terrorist, who entered under the DV1 program, and murdered eight people.

That was Uzbek Bike Path Attacker Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, below:

An NBC report from October 31, 2017 said

Suspect in Tribeca Truck Attack Identified as Uzbek National: Sources

By Jonathan Dienst and R. Darren Price, NBC New York

The 29-year-old man detained after a flatbed truck drove down a popular lower Manhattan bike path, killing at least 8 people and injuring more than a dozen more, has been identified as an Uzbek national living in New Jersey.

In a report like this, the words “Uzbek National” are, in effect, a euphemism for immigrant.

After it transpired that Saipov was an Uzbek immigrant here on the Diversity Visa, the New York Times found an Uzbek Rhodes Scholar (now at Stanford) to do an Op-Ed saying, as Steve Sailer blogged at the time: Why the Zeroth Amendment Obligates USA to Have the Diversity Visa Lottery: “No Person Has a Greater Claim to the American Dream Than Any Other”

The Op-Ed was titled We Need the Diversity Visa Lottery By Machmud Makhmudov November 2, 2017, and I suppose by “we” Mr. Makhmudov means the citizens of the United States.

By the way, the fact that Makhmudov, now an American citizen, got a Rhodes Scholarship, which Cecil Rhodes intended “to promote unity among English-speaking nations” is just one more example of high-skilled immigration displacing a better class of American.

At the time of the Uzbek mass killing, Steve Sailer pointed out that he’d called out the Diversity Visa as long ago as 2002 in an article for UPI:Analysis: The curious immigration lottery, UPI, July 29, 2002.

Oddly enough, the diversity lottery originated as a way to bring more whites to the United States. White ethnic politicians in America felt that their distant relatives in Europe had been squeezed out by chain migration from the Third World. So, natives of the 14 largest sources of legal immigrants -- such as Mexico, India and China -- are banned from participating. In particular, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., saw a diversity lottery as a way to boost the number of legal Irish immigrants.

[Center for Immigrants Studies head Mark] Krikorian explained, “It was cooked up in the 1986 law to provide a way to amnesty Irish illegal aliens, since the main amnesty in that law primarily benefited Mexicans. In fact, to this day the lottery is often referred to by congressmen and their staff as ‘The Irish Program.’ But as the program evolved, and as there were fewer and fewer Irish illegals, its emphasis changed, and it’s now more accurately described as the Middle Eastern, East European and African program.”

Only 331 visas were awarded to Irish applicants this year.

But the reason Sailer was writing about this crazy visa in 2002 is because of another immigrant atrocity—when Hesham Mohamed Hedayet , below, shot up the El Al counter at Los Angeles International Airport.

The late Sam Francis wrote at the time:

If it’s proof of the sheer, homicidal insanity of American immigration policy you want, consider the case of the late Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who achieved immortality of a kind when he shot and killed two people at Los Angeles International Airport last week on July 4. Mr. Hedayet may or may not have been a “terrorist,” actually connected to some formal terrorist organization. But he certainly was an immigrant.

Mr. Hedayet, himself shot down by an El Al security guard after he began blasting by-standers at the El Al ticketing area on Independence Day, was in this country legally, through the grace of a program known as 245(i), which is supposed to let in aliens who meet certain work qualifications and which both President Bush and a bipartisan coalition of the Open Borders lobby have been trying to expand. But the only way that Mr. Hedayet was even able to apply for legal status under 245(i) is that his wife won a lottery.

The lottery in question awards a green card, the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s ticket of legal immigration status, on the basis of “diversity” to some 55,000 foreigners every year. Once she got her green card and became legal, then her husband could apply for legal residency himself under 245(i) and stay here if he paid a fine of $1,000.

Welcome to America in the 21st century. [More]

It’s now America in the second quarter of the 21st Century, and it’s finally time, with the Trump Administration firmly in control, to just stop doing this. While Trump can simply refuse to issue refugee visas, as head of the Executive Branch, the Diversity Visa Lottery is a congressionally mandated program, and needs to be repealed by Congress. One avenue for this would be the Assimilation Act, of which we wrote last week, whose

structure and provisions align closely with core America First priorities: it ends exponential family-chain migration, eliminates the anti-assimilation diversity lottery, imposes a national-interest gate that includes cultural considerations, and raises concrete assimilation and self-sufficiency bars. The Assimilation Act represents the strongest congressional attempt in generations to halt mass immigration and to replace it with an immigration system focused upon quality and cultural compatibility.

There are other options for repeal. The America First Policy Institute wrote in February that

After 30 years, the Diversity Visa Program does not advance America’s national interest, nor was it ever designed to do so. Indeed, sold under the guise of “diversity,” the program was unabashedly designed to import less-educated, low-skilled workers of Irish descent to appease the constituencies of Northeast politicians. The program has been riddled with fraud from its inception, making security checks and eligibility determinations unreliable. Additionally, lax rules that fail to address the dangers posed by state sponsors of terrorism and other terrorist groups present significant national security concerns.

The Trump Administration has rightfully paused the Diversity Visa Program in the wake of the shooting at Brown University. America’s immigration programs should not be designed based on the ease with which foreign nationals can use (or abuse) them. Instead, such programs should place the interests of Americans first. It is time that Congress ends the DV Program and replaces it with a program that promotes merit-based immigration, where individuals are selected to come to the United States based on education, skill, self-sufficiency, and ability to contribute to our economy and society.

See It’s Time for Congress to End the Diversity Visa Program by Julie Kirchner and Kassidy Scott February 5, 2026.

Thirty plus years of “diversity” is enough.

James Fulford has been writing about the national question for over 20 years, mostly for VDARE.com, more recently for WhitePapers. Subscribe to his personal Substack here.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Stay in touch at info@whitepaperspolicy.org!

The America of today looks nothing like our Founding Fathers intended. Prior to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, nobody had ever heard of “a nation of immigrants.”1 In fact, for more than 360 years, from 1610 to 1970, the demographics of the US held steady at 87% White American and 12% African American. Hispanics only broke 1% of the population in 1930 and remained under 5% until the 1980 census.

All immigration policy, from our very first immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, until 1965, was crafted specifically to preserve the unique founding polity of our country. However, this act eliminated restrictions on national origin, opening the US up to the world—and chain migration. In just 55 years time, at the 2020 census, the United States went from 87% European and Ethnic American to 57.84% European and Ethnic American, 12.05% Black, 18.73% Hispanic, 6% Asian, less than 1% American Indian, and 4.60% mixed/other race.

Some states saw this change more than others (all illustrated below), but the whole country saw and felt a dramatic difference in our culture and our economic outlook—all without our consent.

Subscribe now

Americans have consistently voted against more immigration. As of September 2024, 33% of Americans view diversity as a threat to America and 66% of Americans support mass deportations.

But there is hope! Remigration is politically viable, humane, and practical. Below, we want to give you a vision, at the local level, of what your state will look like post-remigration.

You can read the full American Repatriation Policy Platform here. But in short, we propose a combination of both Mandatory and Voluntary Remigration policies:

Mandatory policies include:

• Deport all illegal immigrants

• Denaturalize and deport criminals and those who obtained citizenship through fraud

• Visa cancellation

Voluntary remigration policies include economic incentives for people to remigrate back to their home countries. Polling data reveals that consistently across Western counties, anywhere from 45% of People of Color (according to a Monmouth University poll) to 66% of working-age non-Westerners (per a Word on the Curb survey in Britain) would leave if given the resources to do so. Therefore, in our projections, we assume a moderate 50% of people would opt-in to voluntary remigration with the appropriate economic support.

Check out our Remigration Resources page to see more detailed proposals where it is available for each country.

Find your state below!

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Support our mission by contributing using one of the methods below:

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

All Americans should be alarmed by the scale and character of post-1965 legal mass immigration. After two generations of closed borders and cultural cohesion which helped to turn America into the world’s leading superpower, our borders were opened again in 1965 by the Hart-Celler Act. Since then, our country has become progressively more diverse and therefore less American. While massive illegal immigration has imposed social and economic costs, deliberate, post-1965 legal mass immigration has played a significant role in the rapid demographic dispossession of Americans, wage stagnation for native workers, fiscal strain on our welfare programs, and a cultural erosion of the American way of life. We need a correction.

Tennessee representative Andy Ogles’ newly introduced ASSIMILATION Act (formally the “American System for Sustainable Immigration and Mass Immigration Limitations Achieved Through Imposing Oversight Nationally Act”) is, in our opinion, this substantive and long-overdue corrective.

Introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) and Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tennessee) on May 14, 2026, the bill explicitly targets the Hart-Celler framework (the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments) that shifted U.S. policy away from national-origins preservation and prioritized chain migration and engineered diversity.

The legislation’s structure and provisions align closely with core America First priorities: it ends exponential family-chain migration, eliminates the anti-assimilation diversity lottery, imposes a national-interest gate that includes cultural considerations, and raises concrete assimilation and self-sufficiency bars. The Assimilation Act represents the strongest congressional attempt in generations to halt mass immigration and to replace it with an immigration system focused upon quality and cultural compatibility.

Findings and Purposes (Sections 101–102)

Section 101 (Findings) states that the 1965 Amendments “replaced national origins quotas with a preference system prioritizing extended family-based immigration over national interest.” It finds this produced “unprecedented levels of chain migration,” created the diversity visa lottery, increased overall immigration, strained public resources, suppressed wages, and “tested the ability of the people of the United States to promote assimilation and social cohesion.”

This finding is a refreshingly honest assessment from two members of Congress. For more context, between 1921, when the Emergency Quota Act was introduced to curtail mass immigration from Europe, and 1965, when the Hart-Celler Act was passed, legal immigration to the United States averaged 213,000 individuals per year—a significant decrease from the 850,000 to 2.1 million that had arrived every year since the 1890s. As a result of this 44-years of restriction, the foreign-born population of the United States plummeted from nearly 14% in 1920 to about 5.4% by 1960. The overall population of immigrants during that time declined from 14 million in 1920 to 9.7 million in 1960. America became substantially more American through a half-century of closed borders and stringent integration of the descendants of the early 20^th century immigrants. The 1965 Hart-Celler Act erased that progress.

Between 1965, when Hart-Celler passed and 2024 (just before Trump returned to office), legal immigration to the United States averaged 808,000 new permanent residents per year. Between 1990 and 2024, specifically new permanent legal immigrants averaged 1.02 million per year. By December of 2024, the foreign-born population of the United States exceeded 53.3 million people composing 16% of the population—the highest share of foreigners in American history by far. This cannot be allowed to continue, and that is what the Assimilation Act appears to recognize.

Section 102 (Purposes) aims:

“(1) to ensure immigration policy advances the national interest by establishing a universal national interest standard… and

(2) to revise and repeal the central framework established by the Hart-Celler Act by replacing family-chain and lottery-based admissions with a merit-based system that prioritizes economic self-sufficiency, cultural assimilation, and the protection of United States workers.”

This is the bill’s north star. It rejects the post-1965 default of high-volume, low-scrutiny immigration in favor of deliberate selection for net benefit—including cultural assimilation.

National Interest Standard (Section 104)

The bill adds a new subsection to 8 U.S.C. 1101 requiring that “An alien’s admission, classification, employment, or proposed endeavor shall be deemed to be in the national interest only if such alien establishes, by a preponderance of objective evidence, that such admission, classification, employment, or proposed endeavor is expected to produce a material prospective public benefit for the United States.”

Public benefit may include significant contributions to “economic, cultural, educational, scientific, technological, health, foreign-policy, or security interests.” Determinations cannot rest on private interest, unsupported assertions, or speculation.

This is one of the bill’s strongest America First features. Rather than permitting the mass entry of non-productive and culturally alien immigrants, the Assimilation Act creates a framework where a rejection of admission is presumed, and the burden of proof lies upon the immigrant to prove they can contribute to the national interest of the United States. This framework very directly counters the post-1965 inertia of admitting large numbers simply because of family ties or the ability to win a diversity visa or H-1B visa lottery spot. The Assimilation Act will, in essence, stop the mass importation of low-trust tribal and third world immigrants (think entire Somali villages moving to Minnesota) and instead create an environment where to admit even one immigrant will require remarkable scrutiny of their ability, background, and skill set. Moreover, the use of the term “public benefit” means that the employment of masses of legal immigrants by American corporations would be heavily curtailed.

Family-Sponsored Immigration Reform (Section 201)

This section dramatically narrows chain migration:

• Immediate relatives are limited to “spouses and unmarried children under 18 years of age of a citizen of the United States.”

• Lawful permanent residents may sponsor only “spouses or children under 18 years of age.”

• Parents of U.S. citizens aged 21+ receive a new temporary non-immigrant classification (W visa): initial 5-year admission, extendable only while the sponsor resides in the U.S.; ineligible for employment or any federal/state/local public benefits; sponsor must be financially responsible; requires proof of health insurance imposing no government cost; does not confer immigrant status or adjustment eligibility.

• Worldwide family-sponsored level capped at 88,000.

This is perhaps the most important section of the bill. Currently, family-based immigration is responsible for 65% to 78% of immigrant admissions to the United States every year. Each year more than 750,000 immigrants are admitted to this country on the basis of family ties and more than 75% of those admissions are the family members of other immigrants, not of Americans. Furthermore, current immigrants can sponsor adult children, the parents, their siblings, and those individuals can then in turn sponsor their own family members. It is a massive ‘chain’ that pulls entire Pakistani, Mexican, Somali, and other third world villages and towns into the United States to resettle en masse. The Assimilation Act puts an end to this.

By limiting family admission to spouses and unmarried children under the age of 18, the Assimilation Act will effectively end chain-migration from the third world. It will also heavily curtail the number of second-generation immigrants born in the United States through limiting the immigration of the children of immigrants to unmarried minors. It’s a fantastic provision.

White Papers estimates that the implementation of Section 201 would lower legal immigration to the United States by about 450,000 individuals a year and cut family-based immigration by 55% in the first several years of implementation. The legislation would also significantly curtail the number of naturalizations given that it does not allow most family members the ability to adjust their visa once the sponsoring family member departs or is no longer able to financially support them.

Elimination of Diversity Immigrant Category (Section 202)

The bill strikes section 203(c) of the INA (the diversity visa lottery) entirely. It applies to new petitions; prior selections lose eligibility post-enactment.

Americans have long criticized the diversity lottery as an explicit mechanism to increase immigration from underrepresented (read third-world) regions after the 1965 shift. The Diversity Lottery essentially functions as a form of demographic engineering. It pulls the most disparate cultures and peoples from around the globe to the United States for no other reason than the crazed idea that “diversity” is an inherent good. The diversity lottery’s elimination through the Assimilation Act would serve as a symbolic and practical halt to replacement-level demographic change. It would assert the precedent in law that America is not some place where anyone can show up and “become an American. It would lower legal immigration by 50,000 people per year. As a result, there will be fewer second-generation immigrant children in the United States that Americans are forced to pretend are just as American as we are.

Employment-Based Immigration and H-1B Reforms (Sections 203–204)

Employment-based immigration in the Assimilation Act would be capped at 140,000 visas annually and subjected to a rigorous national-interest certification. This is a significant decline from the 200,000 employment-based visas that the United States issues every year. In other words, it would require American companies to hire more Americans! Additionally, the employment-based applicants must satisfy at least one presumptive positive factor and rebut all presumptive negative factors.

Presumptive positive factors include high compensation (90th percentile), work in designated national-interest/shortage occupations at the 75th percentile or commitment to shortage fields, strategic federal support, extraordinary ability, or entrepreneurship creating U.S. jobs.

Presumptive negative factors (must be rebutted) include sub-median compensation, limited English proficiency (below B1 on the CEFR scale, with limited exceptions), serious employer labor noncompliance, or failure to show self-sufficiency without means-tested benefits.

Priority would shift from a lottery system to one based upon compensation and ability. The H-1B reforms in the legislation impose a 200% of median wage floor, a 50,000 annual visa cap, and most substantially a limitation of the visa to 3 years without the ability to renew the H1B visa. This means the immigrant MUST depart the United States after three years and will not be considered for an adjustment to permanent residency for 2 years—two years in which they must live outside of the United States.

This section all but eliminates the H-1B-to-Green-Card pipeline. A huge win for American workers and the American people.

However, 140,000 employment-based slots plus other categories still constitute significant annual legal immigration. 140,000 immigrants who would be allowed to bring their spouses and children under 18 into the United States. Furthermore, any children born to these workers while they live in the country would become American citizens. This is quite problematic.

We would suggest the addition of a provision that explicitly defines employment-based workers similarly to tourists, diplomats, or other classes of immigrant whose children are not eligible for birthright citizenship. This will largely cut off the legal anchor-baby pipeline.

Additional Provisions and Enforcement

The bill does much more to limit legal immigration. The legislation permanently strengthens the public-charge rules so that legal immigrants who would need or who in fact use the welfare state would be removed from the country or never admitted in the first place. The legislation mandates nationwide E-Verify to make illegal aliens largely unemployable. It adds penalties for visa overstays and unlawful presence, reforms asylum and parole, and revises naturalization standards (including references in surrounding materials to longer residency expectations and stricter good-moral-character assessments). Press materials associated with the bill also reference ending birthright citizenship incentives and a 10-year path in some contexts. These are fantastic America First provisions.

These measures close loopholes that patriots have long argued facilitated abuse and reduced incentives for genuine assimilation. Mandatory E-Verify and overstay penalties are practical enforcement tools long demanded by immigration-restrictionists. Raising the naturalization bar aligns with requiring demonstrated commitment rather than automatic or easy citizenship.

Our Overall Assessment:

The ASSIMILATION Act is a serious piece of pro-American legislation that seeks to repudiate the Hart-Celler experiment, ends chain migration’s multiplier effect on mass immigration, kills the diversity lottery, and installs a national-interest filter that includes cultural assimilation and economic self-sufficiency. For any American concerned that decades of high legal immigration have changed the country’s fundamental character faster than assimilation could occur, this legislation offers a meaningful restoration of popular control over who can be a part of our national community and what the future population of the United States will look like.

Pieces of legislation like the Assimilation Act are a crucial first step towards our ultimate goal of preserving and strengthening the demography of the American people. We cannot achieve remigration without first massively restricting and reorienting how our immigration system works and who exactly it admits into our country.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Support our mission by contributing using one of the methods below:

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

After a story that reported Arcadia, CA mayor Eileen Wang (born in China’s Sichuan province) admitted acting as foreign agent for China:

A man calling himself @AGHamilton29 on Twitter wrote that

A senior aide to NY Governors, Linda Sun, is also on trial right now for acting as an agent of the CCP. I think people will be shocked once they realize just how many people in America China has on their payroll.

He went on to add:

In case anyone thinks these are isolated incidents instead of part of a covert campaign by China to spy on and influence Americans, here are some other examples from the last few years:

· In 2025, a top Department of State employee with high-level security clearance was sentenced to four years in prison for passing national defense information to PRC agents in exchange for $10,000 in cash.

· In 2024, a former CIA officer was sentenced to ten years in prison for providing PRC agents with a large volume of national defense information for $50,000 in cash.

· In 2026, a U.S. Navy [petty] officer was sentenced to 200 months in prison for espionage after selling secrets about naval capabilities to the PRC in exchange for $12,000.

· In April 2025, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst was sentenced to 84 months in prison for providing the PRC with sensitive data on U.S. Army capabilities for $42,000.

· In October 2025, a former U.S. Army sergeant was sentenced to four years in prison for selling national defense information to PRC agents.

· In 2025, an active-duty U.S. Army sergeant was arrested for selling classified hard drives to individuals in China for at least $15,000.

My comment:

Because obviously Chinese spying in the US is a function of mass immigration from the People’s Republic of China. Linda Sun, above, was deputy chief of staff to the Governor of New York State, and is now charged with acting as an undisclosed foreign agent for China.

So in those six cases above:

1: The 2025, a top Department of State employee is Michael Charles Schena, a white guy. (Schena is an Italian name.)

2. The former CIA officer sentenced in 2024 was Alexander Yuk Ching Ma, (Chinese: 馬玉清; born 1952 in British Hong Kong, now part of the Peoples Republic of China) and a “blood relative”—presumably also Chinese.

3. The U.S. Navy officer sentenced in 2026 to 200 months in prison for espionage is Chinese.

Justice.gov reports

On January 12, 2026, former U.S. Navy Machinists Mate (a Petty Officer) Jinchao “Patrick” Wei was sentenced to 200 months (over 16 years) in federal prison for espionage, having sold sensitive technical and operating manuals regarding USS Essex naval capabilities to a Chinese intelligence officer for over $12,000. The 25-year-old naturalized citizen was convicted in August 2025.

The PRC paid for “a trip for Wei and his mother to travel to China.”

“Naturalized citizen” means immigrant from China—where presumably his mother was also born.

Also arrested at the same time: Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao, 26, sentenced to 27 months, according to a Justice.gov report which makes no mention of his citizenship, but describes him as “Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao, 26, aka Thomas Zhao, of Monterey Park, California” and says

“The intelligence services of the People’s Republic of China actively target clearance holders across the military, seeking to entice them with money to provide sensitive government information,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew G. Olsen. “When contacted by his co-conspirator, rather than reporting it to the Navy, the defendant chose greed over protecting the national security of the United States. He is now being held accountable for his crimes. To others tempted to put personal profit ahead of patriotic duty, know that we are committed to identifying you and bringing you to justice.”

“Clearance holders” is the operative word above—it turns out, according to the Center for Development of Security Excellence, that Wenheng Zhao, 26 at the time of his conviction, is in fact a native of China, who lived in China until he was 12, and became a citizen in 2012. So why did he have a Secret Clearance in the first place?

Back to this list above:

4. The former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who was sentenced in April 2025 84 months in prison for providing the PRC with sensitive data on U.S. Army capabilities for $42,000.

This turns out to be a white guy, again.

From Justice.gov:

Korbein Schultz, 25, of Wills Point, Texas, pleaded guilty in August 2024 to conspiring to collect and transmit national defense information, unlawfully exporting controlled information to China, and accepting bribes in exchange of sensitive, non-public U.S. government information.

He wasn’t recruited by ethnic appeals, but offered money online. From cdse.edu

While on an internet platform that connects freelancers with clients, Schultz was contacted by an individual claiming to be with a geopolitical consulting firm. He later admitted when seeking a plea deal that he suspected all along that this individual was associated with the Chinese Government.

According to court documents, from May 2022 until his arrest in March 2024, Schultz engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to provide dozens of sensitive U.S. military documents directly to a foreign national residing in the People’s Republic of China in exchange for financial compensation of approximately $42,000.

5. “In October 2025, a former U.S. Army sergeant was sentenced to four years in prison for selling national defense information to PRC agents.”

This is also a white American: Joseph Daniel Schmidt of the 109th Military Intelligence Battalion, at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, flew to China, and offered intel to the PRC for money.

According to Task And Purpose

His arrest came in part to his search history. Schmidt used Google several times to look up information tied to espionage, searching for topics such as “can you be extradited for treason,” and “soldier defect.” The FBI also asserted that Schmidt took notes on a criminal conspiracy, creating a 22-page document entitled “Important Information to Share with Chinese Government.”

And the final one, from the list above:

6. “In 2025, an active-duty U.S. Army sergeant was arrested for selling classified hard drives to individuals in China for at least $15,000.”

This is actually two soldiers, and one former soldier, all of them Chinese. (No photos because the Federal authorities don’t include mugshots.)

Justice.gov:

Jian Zhao, and Li Tian, active-duty U.S. Army soldiers stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, along with Ruoyu Duan, a former U.S. Army soldier, were arrested today following indictments by federal grand juries in the District of Oregon and the Western District of Washington.

In lieu of mugshots, here’s a picture of some of the classified hard drives:

So out of the six cases above, three involved regular Americans, but the other three involved a total of FIVE Chinese-Americans—conspiring with other, because of shared ancestry.

“When contacted by his co-conspirator, rather than reporting it to the Navy, [Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao,] chose greed over protecting the national security of the United States” said the Assistant Attorney General for National Security above.

Are we sure of that? Maybe he chose China over the national security of the United States.

Now after all that, let’s look at Wikipedia’s List of Chinese spy cases in the United States as of today. There are 69 individual names. I’ve boldfaced the ones that aren’t obviously Chinese, because that’s faster—there are fewer of them.

Accused of Espionage

• Xudong Yao

• Yanqing Ye

• Li Xiaoyu and Dong Jiazhi

• Zhang Haoran, Tan Dailin, Jiang Lizhi, Qian Chuan, and Fu Qiang

• Chenguang Gong

• Linwei Ding

• Linda Sun

• John Harold Rogers

• Jian Zhao, Li Tian, and Ruoyu Duan

• Michael Charles Schena

• Yin Kecheng and Zhou Shuai

• Xu Zewei and Zhang Yu

• Chenguang Gong

Accused of related crimes

• Mingqing Xiao

Pled guilty or convicted (espionage)

• Larry Wu-tai Chin

• Bill Gaede

• Peter Lee

• Fei Ye and Ming Zhong

• Moo Ko-Suen

• Ronald Montaperto

• Chi Mak

• Gregg Bergersen and Tai Shen Kuo

• Anne Lockwood, Michael Haehnel, and Fuping Liu

• Glenn Duffie Shriver

• Ji Li Huang and Xaio Guang Qi

• Bryan Underwood

• Walter Liew

• Candace Marie Claiborne

• Kevin Mallory

• Xu Jiaqiang

• Jerry Chun Shing Lee

• Ron Rockwell Hansen

• Hongjin Tan

• Xuehua Edward Peng

• Hao Zhang

• Yeo Jun Wei

• Li Chen

• Wei Sun

• Shuren Qin

• Yi-Chi Shih

• Yanjun Xu

• Xiang Haitao

• Xiaorong You (Shannon You)

• Shapour Moinian

• Ji Chaoqun

• Wenheng Zhao

• Jinchao Wei

• Alexander Yuk Ching Ma

• Shujun Wang

• Korbein Schultz

• Joseph Daniel Schmidt

• Yuance Chen and Liren “Ryan” Lai

• Eileen Wang

Only 12 of 69 Chinese spies are not either Chinese or “Chinese-American”—and the cases where the Chinese Communists are bribing regular Americans are facilitated by massive Chinese immigration.

During the pandemic, we were repeatedly told that blaming the Chinese for COVID-19, or even calling it the China Virus was “racist.” There was also a strong push to treat the idea that it was engineered in a Chinese laboratory as “disinformation”.

On Twitter, left-wing journalist James Surowiecki asks

How would knowing that Covid came from a lab - assuming for the sake of argument that it did, and that we could know that with certainty - have saved lives? What would have been different about our response?

Well, the obvious answer is that it would have—and possibly still should—inspire American government action against the PRC, preferably short of nuclear war, but possibly starting with a Travel Ban and a ban on all immigration from China.

That’s also an appropriate response to massive Chinese espionage—especially considering that that there are over a quarter of a million Chinese students in the US on visas in any given year, to say nothing of Chinese professors.

With this level of influence and espionage, it’s time to start acting as if American interests matter more than those of “international students” and shut down the espionage pipeline.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Support our mission by contributing using one of the methods below:

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Despite being about the size of Maryland, The Netherlands provides more food to the world than any other nation except the US. They gave us the microscope, eye-test charts, and some of the world’s greatest art including Rembrandt, Van Gogh, and iconic delftware.

Their frugality and their honest social directness is notoriously jarring to everyone but the Germans. But what do you expect from a practical, and efficient people who brought forth a country from the sea?

Like any other European ethnicity, they have their unique take on Western traditions, too. According to the Dutch, Saint Nicholas lives in Spain. And instead of elves, he leads an entourage of “six to eight black men” (David Sedaris’ words, not mine! Saint Nicholas’s helper “Black Pete” is a freed slave and the subject of ongoing controversy.).

But like its neighbors, the Netherlands faces a tidal wave of demographic change that is threatening its admirable and quirky culture beyond recognition. The Dutch (and Frisians) face a serious challenge in dealing with this radical demographic change, but it’s far from impossible!

Much like the French, Germans, and Americans, the new neighbors are overwhelmingly recent arrivals. Comparatively few hold Dutch citizenship, many are not yet integrated, and third-generation immigrants of non-European origin are rare. Remigration: the denaturalization of dual citizens, the cancellation of visas, and the deportation of illegals would massively reverse the demographic change that has been done to the Netherlands.

The Situation:

In part one, we will cover the current demographic situation in the Netherlands and familiarize ourselves with how many people are foreign-born, hold dual citizenship, or are non-European entirely. As with all our pieces, we will utilize official data collected by national statistics agencies, universities, and other established institutions where available, not because other data is not honestly acquired, but because our goal is to minimize distractions over perceived political agendas.

The latest available data from Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek) reports that 4.4 million people in the Netherlands have a 1st or 2nd generation migrant background, with a total population of 17.6 million people in 2022.

Statistics Netherlands then goes on to break down these groups, stating that 2.5 million people in the Netherlands have a “non-Western” background, though their classification of which groups are non-Western is unusual. For historical reasons, Indonesians are counted as “Western,” as are the Japanese. If we properly classify these non-European groups into the ‘non-Western’ category we can more accurately see that just about 2.86 million non-Western migrants of the 1st and 2nd generation live in the Netherlands, making up 16.25% of the population.

This is far from the full story, however. Third-generation migrants, those who were born to the children of original immigrants, are a small but growing part of the Dutch population and must be mentioned. While the Dutch government classifies third-generation migrants as “Dutch” in the same way it would an ethnic Dutchman, it rather helpfully still goes through the process of tracking this population of individuals.

The Dutch government reported that in 2024, there were approximately one million third-generation immigrants, and that 551,000 have parents with a “non-European” background. This is growing rapidly. Contrast this to 2018, when there were only 120,000 third-generation migrants. Many of the hundreds of thousands of Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, and others who live in the Netherlands arrived in the 1970s-1990s and therefore are finishing raising their (2nd generation) children. Those 2nd generation immigrants, overwhelmingly in their late 20s and early 30s, are beginning to have children.

As such, 75% of the third-generation “non-Western” population is below the age of 18 and is only just beginning to emerge as a serious demographic group, though there is one exception to this: There are several hundred thousand third-generation Indo-Dutch persons in the Netherlands, but the exact numbers of these persons are impossible to find as the Dutch state does not collect statistics on them. Some of these individuals are entirely Indonesian by descent, others are half, and many are less than 1/5th Indonesian—with Grandparents or even Great Grandparents who migrated to the Netherlands who already had an admixture of part Dutch part Asian.

We are not going to adjudicate the “Dutchness” of a group that is ill-defined, numerically unknown, and, in many cases, well-integrated. Only the Dutch nation should make this decision.

As is the case in other Western nations, the non-Western immigrants and their descendants in the Netherlands are crowded into and around the country’s major cities. 40% of the population of Rotterdam is non-Western, while both the Hague and Amsterdam have 35% non-Western populations which are rapidly growing.

These populations, being so heavily concentrated in the major cities of government, commerce, and tourism, are going to make it seem like the already large non-Western population is larger than it really is. Though none of this is to say it is small.

The Netherlands, a country of roughly 12.2 million ethnic Dutch (and Frisians) hosts over 3 million non-Western foreigners, making up roughly 18% of the population.

In total roughly 32% of the population of the Netherlands has a foreign ethnic origin once European non-Dutch are included.

This demographic transformation has thrown the Dutch into one of the most severe housing crises on the continent. The Dutch government has a system of public housing units intended for young people starting out on their own and the elderly. However, there is currently a waiting list of up to thirteen years to get a one-bedroom apartment. This is a substantial increase from 2024 when a woman running for city council explained to us in confidence that her municipality had a waiting list of nine years.

The population is growing so rapidly that the already struggling health system will take up one-quarter of Dutch employment by the year 2040. Public transportation has become too dangerous for the Dutch to utilize in many migrant-heavy areas, and is it any wonder when migrants themselves brag to the media about brandishing knives?

This demographic shift in the Netherlands has alienated the native Dutch who are relocating in droves. Roughly 460,000 Dutch live in other European Union countries. Another 70,000 Dutch have relocated to the United States and a further 100,000 plus have relocated to Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

As a result of migration from Moroccan, Albanian, and South American drug cartels, The Netherlands ranks #5 in the world for the most cocaine seized. These criminals have become so brazen that they threatened the country’s future monarch, forcing H.R.H Crown Princess Catharina-Amalia to drop out of university in her own country and relocate to Spain to continue her studies.

Most concerningly for the Netherlands, and exemplified not only in the person of H.R.H Crown Princess Catharina-Amalia is the fact that most of these emigrants are young. 59% of the native Dutch who have departed the country are under the age of 30.

Furthermore, this native flight from the Netherlands has created a severe brain drain, according to the University of Groningen. Large gaps have emerged in the Dutch labor market which non-Western immigrants are unable to fill.

And it is any wonder young people are fleeing to find economic prosperity where it is denied them at home? When a longitudinal study by the University of Amsterdam found that all post-1995 immigration has had a net negative budgetary effect of some €400 billion on the Dutch state. This figure represents 73.6% of the Netherlands’s current national debt of some €524 billion.

These numbers may seem daunting, but much as we have outlined with America, Britain, France, and Australia, the Dutch have a litany of relatively simple policy options that they could use to reverse the demographic transition of their nation. Remarkably, since our first Dutch Remigration article, a litany of Remigration proposals were created in 2025. We’ll take a look at platforms presented by the Party for Freedom (PVV), Forum for Democracy (FvD), the Farmer-Citizen Movement (BBB), JA21, and Interest of the Netherlands BVNL and suggest next steps for the future of The Netherlands.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider supporting our mission by contributing using one of the methods below:

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Director’s Note: At the New York Young Republicans Gala last December, about 1,000 if us attendees toasted to the Battle Of Blood River in support of the Afrikaner people.

89% of Afrikaners in South Africa are Christian. Their religiosity stems in large part from the vow the Voortrekkers, ancestors of the Afrikaners, made to God before the Battle of Blood River.

In 1838, the Voortrekkers, ancestors of the Afrikaners, led by Piet Retief purchased land from the Zulus. To celebrate, the Zulu king invited Retief and the other leaders of the Voortrekkers to a party and asked them to leave their weapons behind as a sign of respect. They did so, but the Zulus killed all the Voortrekkers present, making sure to kill Retief last so he would watch his people—including his son—die.

The Zulus continued on to slaughter the Voortrekkers including women and children. A few months later Retief’s body was found with the treaty signed by the Zulu king offering them the land.

Andries Pretorius led a small team of the Voortrekkers that were left to confront the Zulus. They were outnumbered some 12,000 Zulus to about 400 Voortrekker men on horseback. The evening before the battle, the religious leader of the Voortrekkers, Sarel Cilliers, led them in a vow to God that if they succeeded, they and their descendants would recognize this day as a sabbath and make sure honor goes to God, not themselves for what He did for them.

Despite being severely outnumbered, not one Voortrekker was killed.

Therefore, Afrikaners honor that day, December 16th, as a holiday and remember their commitment to God. As a result, the Afrikaners are a uniquely patriotic and religious community deeply connected to their land.

By Mike Adams:

The Trump administration has done a lot to improve the fortunes of the Afrikaner people- most recently by granting an additional 10,000 South African refugees to the United States. Afrikaners are—without exaggeration—some of the most mistreated and threatened sons and daughters of the West. We may have our problems with foreigners and their children here in the United States and across the pond in Europe, but in South Africa, the many forms of legal discrimination and personal endangerment that White South Africans face is astonishing.

In response to this injustice against one of the peoples of the West the Trump administration has taken refreshingly swift action. For while American refugee admittance programs have been all but shut down, an exception has been carved out for White South Africans.

Tens of thousands of White South Africans are expected to be welcomed into the country over the course of the next three years while at the same time the Trump administration works to better their situation in South Africa. Afrikaners are now regularly invited to events at the American embassy in South Africa while in D.C. Afrikaner community leaders have been entertained by members of the Vice President’s staff.

Leaders of the Afrikaner rights organization AfriForum now have regular calls with American officials and the US government is overall highly receptive to the issues of Afrikaners.

One can hardly think of a group more deserving of the attention of American foreign policy than the gravely threatened Whites of South Africa, but this current Trump policy is only a stopgap. A stopgap if left to linger as a permanent policy may threaten Afrikaner identity.

(Read and watch our interview with Ernst Roets of Lex Libertas and Joost Strydom of Orania here.)

By all moral means and measures it is right that the American government is doing what it can to protect a vulnerable group of Westerners. Americans share a faith, ethnic origin, and civilization with the Whites of South Africa after all. Afrikaners and English South Africans are the descendants of Dutch and English protestants and so were most of the founders of the American nation and most Heritage Americans today. Yet, our refugee policy is only serving to protect individual Afrikaners, not their unique culture and way of life.

Any Afrikaner who comes to the United States will be expected to integrate into the American nation, and rightly so, but this will also threaten the long-term viability of their ethnic identity—especially if the number of Afrikaners who relocate to the United States is larger than the administration expects. Once a sufficient number of Afrikaners have established themselves in the United States and begin to acquire Green Cards and American citizenship it is highly likely that the usual chain-migration processes will result in many times more White South Africans coming to the United States via those paths than could ever be admitted through the refugee program.

Regardless of the numbers that come, it is all but inevitable that within a generation the children of those Afrikaners who settle in the United States will be functionally indistinguishable from any other protestant White American.

This integration reality leaves a yawning gap in America’s attempt to protect the Afrikaners. We can bring them here to protect them from the persecution of the South African government and to keep them safe from the anti-White crime that plagues South Africa, but we still need to fill that yawning gap in our foreign policy toward the rainbow nation: a way to ensure Afrikaners can continue to exist as an ethno-religious group, and one free from rule by others. That solution is for the administration in Washington to explicitly support the Afrikaner dream of a state of their own. America must support the Volkstaat.

Subscribe now

The most important reason for backing the Volkstaat is that it is the moral thing to do. Multicultural societies inevitably fall into a Hobbes’ war of all against all. Right now, the multicultural South Africa is being run to the benefit of its Black majority (or more precisely its Black ANC elite) and primarily to the detriment of the Whites of that country, though Coloureds and Asians in South Africa have also faced issues under certain quota systems.

The failures of the ANC elite have even led to a country that cannot provide enough water, cannot keep the lights on, cannot keep the streets safe, and cannot keep White South Africans safe. All of these issues have culminated in numerous separatist movements across the country, including Cape independence, Zulu independence, and the Afrikaner Volkstaat movement. For, as with any multiethnic experiment, South Africa is one of continued failure. First there was Apartheid which was a morally and logistically unsustainable system of White rule that eventually gave way to the current morally and logistically unsustainable rule of the ANC and their vision of a rainbow nation (sans Whites).

All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that in order to keep Afrikaners safe in the largest numbers and ensure the continuity of their unique culture they must have a state of their own. The Afrikaners need a place of their own where they govern for themselves and only themselves. An example of this already exists in Orania where only Afrikaners may live, work, and make a life. This ethos would be extended to the whole of the Volkstaat.

The United States has a long history of supporting ethnic separatist movements. America supports the independence of the Albanians of Kosovo, it supported the Tibetan cause, and American foreign policy currently supports the autonomy and self-determination of the Kurds in Iraq.

It would be refreshing for American nationalists if the United States government supported the self-determination of a Christian European people like the Afrikaners over a Muslim, Arab, or Asian group with whom the American people have little in common. Also, unlike these groups, Afrikaners will require comparatively little support once their sovereignty has been secured.

In Orania, the Afrikaner community has transformed an area of desert into a fertile and lush place where homes are surrounded by grass and greenery and where the fields produce a range of crops and livestock. The town produces its own drinking water, electricity, runs a school with a near 100% graduation rate, and enforces its own laws without interference from unreliable South African police.

There is no doubt that Afrikaners are capable of building a self-sustaining nation-state with relatively little financial commitment from outside sources, unlike the Albanians of Kosovo or the Kurdish who rely heavily on American and European patronage.

The United States also won’t need to put American troops or lives at risk to secure Afrikaner independence. As the second largest import and export partner and the largest provided of foreign aid to South Africa the US a great deal of leverage over the government in Pretoria. Just as the West did to the apartheid regime America could make life incredibly hard for the elite of Black dominated South Africa. The US can and should cut them off from sources of banking, luxury goods, import, and trade revenues. The spouses of South African elites should not be allowed to travel to the West and the children of South African elites should be barred from attending American universities. The United States can and should bring cases against South Africa to the International Courts regarding the treatment of Afrikaners, and the American state can use its control of major international institutions like the IMF to assure that South Africa receives little financial assistance until the government in Pretoria agrees to give the Afrikaners a sovereign Volkstaat.

More than 30 years ago, the West succeeded in destroying the apartheid regime and, inadvertently, the only protection Afrikaners had from mistreatment. Since then the West has left them to languish in a failing multi-ethnic state. It’s time for a change. It’s time an Afrikaner Volkstaat.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Consider supporting our mission by contributing using one of the methods below:

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Earlier: Replacement Migration and the Slow Death of Illinois (1/2)

It must be said at the outset that our policy recommendations cannot cure all that ails Illinois. The state suffers from many of the serious policy-making deficits of a typical blue state, and the most we can hope for is that a serious national and state level remigration policy program would allow for a reassessment of many of these policies. To give but one example, Illinois has the third highest state tax in the Midwest at 4.95% and is only modestly behind second place Wisconsin at 7.65% and first place Minnesota at 9.85%—two other states, it is worth noting, which are suffering from increasingly rapid demographic replacement. Illinois also pours countless billions into its failing Medicaid programs—programs which are in severe deficit in part because of the state’s extension of Medicaid to immigrants, including illegal immigrants. The state and its major metro area of Chicago are in serious trouble.

Illinois will never pull upward and out of this budgetary and taxation spiral without first stopping and then reversing mass immigration. If there are no Americans around to make the necessary policy changes because they have been replaced by a new population, then Illinois will come to resemble a strange combination of Latin America, Africa, and Southern Asia. Regions of the world which are not, in general, noted for their social and economic successes.

The first step, and one which the second Trump administration is already working hard to do, is to deal with the issue of illegal aliens and their children. According to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), more than 588,000 illegal aliens current reside in Illinois with a further 240,000 or so people being the children of illegal aliens.

It is worth mentioning that we believe these figures to be underestimations, but we must stick to what data sources we have available. What we do know is that at least 6.5% of Illinois’ population consists of illegal aliens and that this figure is both morally and economically unacceptable. Illinois is part of the American homeland and people who do not have permission to be here must not be allowed to remain within our borders.

By removing all welfare benefits for illegal aliens, passing mandatory E-Verify laws, and enforcing extant federal laws such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 that fines employers for employing illegals, the state can rapidly entice this population to self-deport to other more illegal-friendly locales (or preferably, their home countries). These policies should also be combined with widespread and mandatory state and local law enforcement cooperation with ICE and other federal authorities to speed up the detention and deportation of illegal aliens.

The next step is to deal with the very large legal immigrant population in the state, many of whom will have committed fraud to enter the country, gain legal status, and in many cases citizenship. Currently some two million immigrants call the state home and compose roughly 16% of the state’s population. A further 922,000 residents are the US-born children of these immigrants, and they compose a further 7.2% of the state’s population. In total, more than 23% of Illinois population is composed of people with no significant American heritage. This is replacement.

As such, legal immigration must be reversed in much the same way that illegal immigration is now being reversed. Citizenships must be revoked, visas must be canceled, and Green Cards are going to need to be shredded. We already know that America’s immigration apparatus is hopelessly compromised, after all. Many hundreds of thousands of people have been admitted to this country legally and through these compromised systems. Furthermore, our immigration system is not about finding “hard workers” or the “best and the brightest” but has instead become a way to facilitate the steady replacement of the American people.

Each year roughly 70% to 80% of immigrants admitted to the United States are admitted on the basis of family ties, not for work or school. This means that a large portion of people who have acquired US citizenship did so via fraud either through deceit or by welfare dependence which we shall address below. The proof for this is best demonstrated by a 2008 incident wherein the U.S. State Department discovered, through DNA testing, that only 20% of individuals admitted into the U.S. as a family member of a “refugee” were related to that individual.

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. Further proof is found in the data of the Center for Immigration Studies which shows that 53% of immigrants including 50.2% of naturalized immigrants are dependent upon the welfare state, in violation of American law and moral expectation.

Yet more proof of how unfit many of our new “fellow Americans” are can be found in the recently executed Operation Twin Shield in which immigration officers visited more than 1,000 legal migrants in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area and found that a staggering 44% had committed some form of fraud, crime, or otherwise posed a national security threat to the American people.

Furthermore, the federal government has found that USCIS needs much better enforcement of H1B verification, that as many as 20% of H1B suspects investigated are involved in program violations or fraud, and it suspects that the number is even higher but, due to a lack of enforcement, we simply do not know. It is time for states to step up and begin investigating and enabling federal investigations into massive fraud in our legal immigration system.

Were Illinois to provide support and resources to the federal government to conduct a similar, much larger, operation in the state (including reviewing naturalizations), then it is entirely within the realm of possibility that of the roughly 1.42 legal immigrants in the state, some 752,000 have committed a similar fraud, crime, pose a national security threat, or are welfare dependent in violation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. A further ~ 488,000 children of immigrants can be added to this count, as they would need to depart the country with their now visa-deprived or denaturalized parents.

Were these policies to be implemented comprehensively, Illinois could see a decline in its foreign-born population from 16% today to roughly 6.2% post-remigration. A 61% decrease! The overall state population would decline from 12.72 million to 10.67 million and the White, Heritage American share of the population would increase from its current 58% to roughly 70%, a 12-point increase! This would give Americans a much greater political say in Illinois, go a long way to making the state more attractive to potential American returnees, and lighten many fiscal burdens. Most importantly, though, Illinois would become noticeably more American.

Building further on this success would require voluntary paid remigration programs, which White Papers proposes here. If the U.S. were to implement such a program to allow the 47-61% of immigrants and their descendants who say they want to leave to do, so the White share of Illinois’s population would jump to about 71.3% assuming minimal African American departure.

The demographic decline of Illinois is a policy choice that state and federal lawmakers have made for far too long. Americans can decide to reverse this decline. Remigration is the start of that process and the foundation from which the revival of our nation can begin.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

White Papers is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Director’s Note: We’re delighted to see that Restore Britain swept all ten seats in Great Yarmouth last Thursday. When Reform UK’s Nigel Farage removed Rupert Lowe from the party due to using the term “remigration” on stage, Lowe responded by creating his own party, Restore Britain (whose Mass Deportations Blueprint we reviewed here). Success is the best revenge. Congratulations, gentlemen! There is a “remigration right” emerging in Britain. As seen across the West, Remigration is not only a necessary policy, but politically viable. We welcome guest writer and native Britain Colin Robertson’s advice for Restore so the party can succeed as the political vehicle the British people have been waiting for.

By Colin Robertson

I am not affiliated with Restore Britain. I doubt Rupert Lowe even knows of me. Nothing about me, my life or my views should be seen to reflect on the party or its leading figures. However, I do think that it shares some—some—of my beliefs, and it is the closest of the viable political parties to my way of thinking. For that reason I will offer some unsolicited advice, for what it is worth.

We should be honest about the scope of what is ahead for Restore Britain. I will speak about three phases: expansion, electioneering and governing.

Expansion

This is a critical phase because the people in an organisation define what the organisation ends up being, how it will perform, what strengths and vulnerabilities it will have, and what daily life within it will be like.

Expansion means lots of new activists. Since this is politics, and politics of a certain pitch, some of those who volunteer their time will be misfits, malcontents, sociopaths, the types who love to fall out with people and actively look for ways to create conflict—just an all-round nightmare. Once they’re in, you can’t stop them doing damage because they always find ways around rules. You can only remove them. It is wise to do so promptly.

A separate category, ideological spergs, can be extremely useful but must be kept in a box. They are great at research, number crunching, strategising, etc. Don’t give them any social responsibilities or prominence.

Expansion will also mean bringing professional advisers onboard. That is a risk, especially because they will not be familiar with the sort of political party RB needs to be, since none has existed before. They should be chosen carefully. Not only should they be competent and trustworthy, they should have the imagination needed to understand the project.

Another risk is non-natives joining. Some will be well-meaning, some entirely self-interested, but all will weaken the resolve and ability of RB to do what needs to be done. Hold the line. Remember that the native people of Britain are with you, no matter how little diversity you have in the shop window.

Don’t accept Zionist funders. This is the death knell for any pro-European organisation. It has happened time after time, and RB would be no different. The same goes for figures, such as Douglas Murray, who would force RB down that path. Few things could be more devastating to a party that purports to be devoted to improving Britain and helping the British people. It is a key aspect of the farce of British politics that every party has a “Friends of Israel” organisation. If RB does this, people will see the party, rightly or not, as a sham owned and controlled by foreign interests and the organic support, the base, the energy, will dry up overnight.

Then you have to worry about infiltrators—spies from the media, Hope Not Hate, etc.—who will seek to get your people on tape saying something inadvisable. Everyone should bear this in mind and not say anything in private that they wouldn’t say on TV. State infiltration will likely come in the form of honeypots, because there is no surer way to corrupt young men than with young women. Insulate yourselves from scandal however you can. Finances, relationships, etc.

Then there are the drama merchants, the martyrs and exhibitionists who thrive on wild antics that get attention, creating fodder for their socials and for the progressive media, but generally bring down the tone and drive away sensible people.

What you need is straightforward, well-adjusted professional types, preferably with unblemished personal lives, the types of people who solve problems rather than create new ones.

Expansion is an extremely tricky business because basically every new person is a risk. Mistakes will be made. The whole organisation will need to be adept at recovering from these and continually moving forwards. However, vetting and monitoring new people will be essential to building a stable working environment.

I can’t emphasise enough that the organisation will need to be robust, because the opposition it is going to face will be historic. (Were the country’s situation not so drastic, I would even suggest delaying an electoral run until a solid base has been established.) I also can’t emphasise enough how being robust depends on the types of people brought onboard. An organisation is the people in it.

Loyalty (“he agrees with us”) should count for infinitely more than merit (“he’s clever/qualified”). But, obviously, you ideally want both in every person you bring onboard. The establishment parties will always be able to attract qualified people; RB’s appeal will be strength and conviction, not slickness.

Electioneering

I think this will actually be a lot easier than the first phase, because the message is one that the British people will naturally be very amenable to. Finally having a party that represents them, comes across as genuine and simply speaks the truth will be a breath of fresh air. If RB don’t win a majority in the next election, they will in the one after that. Yes, it might be necessary for Britain to endure a farcical Reform/Conservative or an appalling Green/Labour government, but if RB hold the line and don’t cuck, victory will be assured after that. I would strongly advise against accepting a minority role in a coalition government. It worked out badly for the Lib Dems in 2010, and the establishment would make sure it worked out badly for RB.

I suspect that, in time, RB will transcend the left/right paradigm to some extent, but clearly for now it is squarely a right-wing party. For that reason, courting Green, Labour and LibDem voters is largely a waste of time. You will have more luck pulling (some of) them towards your position than slyly adapting it to please them. The realities of Britain today - corruption, globalism, corporatism, cost of living crisis, the failures of multiculturalism - are visible to everyone who is willing to see them, and I think a lot of young men who currently feel that the Green Party sympathises with them could be brought over on the same basis. A lot of people are not stridently left-wing, they just hate the status quo. But Tolkien would have hated it for the same reasons. Be Tolkien, not Thatcher.

When it comes to Conservative and Reform voters, your task is at once easier and harder. It is easier because these parties are obviously corrupt and incapable of rescuing the country. It is harder because a) a lot of people have invested great hope in Reform and b) conservative people tend to be very staid. RB will seem to them like an unknown quantity, and maybe too extreme. Do not over-play any cartoonish memeable “basedness”, no matter how funny it might be. The party’s communications can be slick and “cheeky” and poke fun at its rivals, but should never veer into the sort of vulgarity that can be used against it.

RB’s top weapon against Reform is the fact that Farage, now admitted publicly by the man himself, lied about Rupert Lowe in the hopes of getting him imprisoned and destroying his reputation. No sensible person should want a man who behaves like that in charge of the country. There is a danger of over-playing this card, but only if you fail to supplement it with other things - tangible policy, capable figures, clear direction, a clean image, a proper constitution. If you have those things sorted out, you can safely go hell-for-leather against Farage on this crucial matter of personal integrity. The emphasis should be not on Lowe’s misfortune or suffering, but on Farage’s duplicity and malice.

Boomers, like left-wingers, should not be placated, but rather invited to come to your position. Don’t waste time and energy trying to adapt the message for them, because as far as I can see, the message really isn’t for them. It is for the young who will need to deal with the Britain that is on the way.

Don’t over-play the Christian angle. It needlessly alienates many people who would naturally be your allies. I say this as someone who is dismayed whenever a church is converted into a mosque or a callcentre. Of course our Christian heritage matters (even to those of us who are not Christian) and of course it should be protected. But we are not starting from a point at which a majority of the population are practising Christians, and it would be wise to proceed with that in mind.

Don’t over-play the stuff about welfare scroungers. While there is undoubtedly a huge problem with multi-generational welfare dependency, there is also the fact that a lot of jobs simply are disappearing due to automation, AI, off-shoring and low-wage immigration. This issue particularly affects young men, who would otherwise be drawn to RB, and have been systematically cut out of employment, training, promotion, bursaries, etc. and really left on the scrap heap. It’s also the case (I believe) that Thatcherite insistence that people “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” has led to dead-end communities up and down the country, when investment and sympathy would have been a more intelligent approach for families that, until then, wouldn’t have dreamt of going on welfare but found themselves with little option. All of these factors explain a large part of Zack Polanski’s appeal, and rather than refute or ignore this, I would suggest RB co-opt it. Make it positive; instead of demonising “the indolent”, speak of those who are “neglecting their potential”. You might even call them “the neglected”.

No token BAME candidates. This is a cheap tactic that insults everyone and demoralises the young who are “over” such things. They are worried about being strangers in their country; they don’t care whether you’re “down with the Sikhs” or not.

Having good people, who seem capable of doing the monumental work the party seeks to do in government, will be essential during the electioneering phase. People want to see that RB is a serious party, genuinely preparing to do what it has pledged.

Governing

Third will be actually being in government and saving the country. This might involve:

• gutting and re-staffing the civil service (otherwise it will thwart you at every turn and get you tied up with a million kinds of nonsense)

• reforming the judiciary to disbar activist judges. This is not just for criminal reform but to prevent them thwarting governmental action

• leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

• legally abolishing DEI

• reforming the entire governmental apparatus (including banning Hope Not Hate)

• prosecuting everyone involved in the Pakistani rape gangs and the facilitating thereof

• bringing industry and food production home to revitalise the economy

• reforming the tax system to incentivise native family formation and increase birth rates

• slashing the insane, suicidal wokery in education

• reinventing formal education for the 21st Century

• abolishing or drastically reforming the BBC. Personally I favour reforming it and consider promising to abolish it a cultural and electoral strategic mistake, but I will write about that separately

• remigration (eg. my 25-point blueprint)

Once in government, RB will be surrounded by traitors and “establishment creatures”. Get rid of them as quickly as possible so that the actual work can proceed unhindered. Clear them out.

General

Messaging should be simple and harmonised. Essays are for critics and academics. You are now in the role of political warriors. Politics masquerades as a debate club but is actually a gladiatorial battle. Do not think that reasoning with your enemies will ever placate them. Your job is to ensure that you don’t get stuck in the weeds and that they do.

Attack is the best form of defence. Always be on the attack. Do not justify to the enemy unless it is strategically useful for you.

Keep the weirdos and fatties out - optics matter. RB people should look good and sound good. The fewer Ts that are dropped, the better; leave the nihilism to the Greens.

Resist the temptation to disavow your radical supporters. Use Cato’s tactics. Radicals can be tactless but their energy is priceless. Disavow them only when absolutely necessary.

I realise there will be no shortage of people offering RB advice. White Papers Policy Institute have some ideas. So does Michael Reiners. WorldByWolf wrote a good tweet. Academic Agent has some ideas of the dangers you face and offers good advice. But advice can be suffocating. A lot of what you need to do will be simple common sense.

Sometimes there will be difficulties, both practical and psychological. Have confidantes you can trust completely, and use them when you need to.

In closing

Britain has been in need of revival for a hundred years now. We have watched our Victorian grandeur fade, sometimes we have watched governments actively destroy it, and today we watch as its remnants are mocked, or re-purposed for foreigners who wear our heritage as a skin-suit. Cold Thatcherite monetarism didn’t reverse any of this. Neither did Blairite globalism. Neither will autistic libertarianism.

What is needed is new thinking, the courage and imagination to restore a great country and revitalise a great people. We do not need a return to the 1980s or the 1990s or even the 1890s, but a spring forward to something new and innovative, something that respects our deep past and replenishes it, and which nourishes us as a people — because that is what we are.

A lot of the structures of the 20th Century, and the terrible first quarter of the 21st, will need to be dismantled. A lot of people will need to be re-homed where they belong so that we have our country again and can begin the long process of healing, of recovering our peoplehood.

These are uncharted waters. The state clearly needs rolled back, but at the same time, relying on the free market will not be enough, because its interests are most fully served by destroying peoples and countries.

Nothing—no principle, value, law or institution—is more important than our future.

What the British need now is a government that is not in hock to any ideology of the past, and which has the courage and imagination to conceive of a future for us—for only us.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

Subscribe now

Consider supporting our mission by contributing using one of the methods below:

Credit Card: whitepaperspolicy.org/donate

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

Happy Mother’s Day from all of us at White Papers!

We see boosting fertility rates as not just as necessity for a healthy civilization, but as the best way to promote the happiness of our women.

Married mothers report the highest life satisfaction of all women, according to the Institute for Family Studies. Most women say they would like to have two or three children. And those who meet their fertility goals are happiest of all.

Therefore, we’ve compiled a list of our proposals and insight below. Enjoy!

• Nationalist Policymaking and Women

• A Foundation of Families

• A “Feminist?” Immigration Policy

• American Women Are Not Concerned Enough About Mass Immigration

• A New Feminine Politics

• Western Women Working

• And of course, because happy men make happy women: Remaking Men: Nationalist Policymaking for the Future of Masculinity

The state of Illinois was once one of the wealthiest regions in the entire world. Its largest city of Chicago was the second largest American city for nearly 100 years from 1890 to 1982. The hinterlands of Illinois are some of the best agricultural land on the planet, and the state is blessed with borders defined by natural, navigable, rivers and lakes that made it a nexus of freight transport from the 19^th century to the modern era. By every measure, Illinois should be a region of the United States that has only an upward trajectory. It should be filled with economically successful American families and a vibrant, abundant culture. That is not the Illinois of today.

Like most states that compose the great union of the American nation, Illinois has entered a period of steep demographic decline that is seeing its foundational American population—the population that founded, developed, and built Illinois from wilderness to powerhouse—vanish under a tide of demographic change, emigration, and economic decline. This is an incredible shame considering that Illinois gave the nation, and the world, inventions such as the first Blood Bank (1937), spray paint (1947), the automatic dishwasher (1893), the grain silo (1873), the first handheld cellular phone (1983), and much more.

Now, the population responsible for these innovations (the unique American people) are vanishing from the state.

From the state’s settlement until the early 1780s to the 1950s (a span of more than 170 years), the territory and then 21^st state of Illinois had a population that was 95+% White/European and American. The only significant minority to live in Illinois from its settlement onward were the small portion of African Americans who have shared the United States with White Americans since the earliest days of colonization under the British. Illinois was NOT a “diverse” place as we understand it today, and it was not a reflection of the world. It was a European, Christian, thoroughly American outpost of Western civilization. That all began to change with the passage of the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration act and the subsequent decades of both deliberate legal and illegal mass immigration that have come to shape the modern United States.

Between 1960 and 1990, the Hispanic population of Illinois skyrocketed from less than 1% of the state’s demography to 8%. The Hispanic population had grown from a few tens of thousands of individuals to more than 904,000 by the year 1990. Today roughly 2.5 million Hispanics call the state home and comprise roughly 20% of Illinois population. The people of Illinois never voted to be replaced by the masses of Latin America and yet it is happening.

Similarly, the Asian population of Illinois went from roughly 0.2% in 1960 to more than 6% today while the numerical count of Asians in the state has jumped from a few thousand in 1960 to more than 900,000 according to the latest estimates.

These changes have been driven overwhelmingly by mass immigration and subsequent births to immigrants in Illinois

.

In 1960, about 67% of the state’s population was born in Illinois and more than 95% of the population were American-born. Of the 10.8 million Illinois residents in 1960, only 686,000 had been born abroad. Today there are roughly 2 million foreign-born residents in Illinois and they compose 16% of the state’s population—a staggering increase and indisputable evidence that the American people are being replaced in their own heartland. And it is not just that more foreigners are moving to Illinois, Americans are fleeing the state in droves.

Between 1980 and 2020, more than 1.5 million White Americans packed up and left Illinois. In this time frame the population share of White Americans in the state has declined from 78% to 58% and our latest estimates show that White Americans are now likely 56% of Illinois population as of 2026 and remain in numerical decline due to out-migration for other states. Similarly, the African American population has now entered a state of decline. More than 200,000 African Americans are estimated to have left the state since the 1910s and the African American share of the population has declined from a peak of 15.1% in 1990 to roughly 13.4% today. Their population share is expected to decline with increasing speed as the African American population ages and relocates while African and Black Caribbean immigrants resettle in what were once African American communities (and further back once White American communities) in cities like Chicago.

This brings us onto the subject of Chicago. America’s once second largest city which at its 1950s peak had a population of more than 3.6 million people roughly 90% of whom were White Americans and 9% of whom were African American. It was easily one of the wealthiest, most industrialized, most productive urban areas on the planet and today is roughly akin to a post-apocalyptic wasteland with a city center that has been carefully manicured and preserved in order to attract White tourists. As of 2020, only 31% of the city’s population were White Americans while the African American population fell from a 1990 peak of 39% to a 2020 share of about 28%. Meanwhile the Hispanic population which was less than 1% in 1950 now exceeds 30% and the Asian population has grown from less than 0.5% in the 1950s to 7% as of 2020. The Christian, English speaking, European-descended population that founded and peopled Chicago for more than 150 years has been reduced to a minority in the city of their ancestors. Very soon, Americans (both Black and White) are likely to be reduced to a minority in Chicago altogether.

This state of affairs is unacceptable to say the least. American states and American cities cannot be allowed to become or remain places where Americans are reduced to a minority. Americans deserve sovereignty, independence, and the right to live according to our laws, traditions, and customs without outside interference. In part two, White Papers will outline a raft of policies both state and federal that could be used to reclaim Illinois for the American people and our posterity.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

White Papers is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

The American Right as a whole, but especially the online mass of the American Right has recently erupted into discussion of Indian immigration to the United States and for good reason. The total Indian-descended population of America is now closing in on and may well exceed 6 million people. We estimate roughly 5.8-6.2 million Indians now live in the United States; and roughly 3.2 million of them, or about 55%, were born abroad. Extrapolating from PEW data, we estimate a further 1.8 million Indians in the US are second-generation immigrants.

In other words, some 80% of the Indians in the United States are immigrants and their children. Americans are starting to notice.

The pro-replacement immigration crowd and Indian ethnic advocates in the US are quick to argue that that this is a good thing—that Indians are an economic boon because of their high household incomes which are about $150,000 a year. This is great for Indian families, but it has been disastrous for young Americans forced out of the tech workforce by these Indians. This is the crux of the issue. It is not about the GDP figure or by what percentage the economy grows. It is also not about whether or not Indians are good, decent, honest people or if they are scammers, liars, and have a Third-World cultural outlook. There is evidence in abundance to support both of these views, but they are not what is being litigated in this piece.

Our focus here is on the fact that America is NOT India, and therefore there is no reason for the United States and the American people to play host to a large and growing Indian diaspora that seeks political influence, economic control, and poses serious cultural and national security risks to the American people.

Our first significant problem is that the Indian diaspora in the United States is viewed as a political tool by India to be used to influence the American government. There are numerous articles on Indian political engagement in American party politics, how the Indian-origin tech CEOs of once-American companies are pouring hundreds of billions into the Indian economy, and a raft of research by the Carnegie Endowment about how Indians in the US learn leftward, are concerned about Indian domestic politics, and of course their overall disapproval for the Trump administration’s tightening of immigration policies. Indians in the United States are not “just as American” as an Anglo-Protestant whose family arrived in 1840 or an American Catholic with roots going back to 1910. Rather Indian Americans are yet another, distinct, part of the massive post-1965 immigrant descended population that asserts its own priorities and is politically at odds with the core American nation.

But do they assimilate? Social and political integration remains limited, despite decades of high-skilled immigration and economic success. Carnegie Endowment surveys of Indian Americans consistently show that roughly 80% of respondents have a spouse or partner of Indian origin, with even U.S.-born Indian Americans at about 71% endogamy. Indians practice far higher rates of in-group marriage than other major Asian groups. This pattern holds across generations and reflects deep cultural, religious, and caste-based preferences that prioritize preserving Indian identity over full assimilation into broader American social norms. Many Indian Americans cluster in ethnic enclaves—think dense “Little India” communities in New Jersey, California, and Texas—where social life, marriage markets, temples, and businesses revolve around Indian networks rather than the wider American mainstream.

Remittances back to India run into the tens of billions annually, and tech leaders of Indian origin frequently channel capital, talent, and know-how back to the homeland, underscoring that economic success in America often serves transnational rather than purely American ends.

Politically, this Indian diaspora acts as a distinct interest group with its own priorities. The Carnegie Endowment data reveals that Indian Americans lean heavily Democratic and express strong disapproval of immigration restrictions, H-1B reforms, and America-first economic policies. Large majorities opposed Trump-era tightening of visas and deportations, viewing them through the lens of their own community’s interests rather than the national interest. Indian-American political action committees and donors have poured resources into U.S. elections while simultaneously engaging Indian domestic politics—often prioritizing Modi-era issues or countering perceived anti-Indian activism in the West. This creates the appearance of dual loyalty: elected Indian-origin officials and wealthy donors advocate for policies that sustain high levels of Indian immigration and tech outsourcing while native-born Americans face wage suppression and displacement in STEM fields. Indians are not “assimilating” into the historic American nation. They are building parallel power structures to political and economically compete with the American people.

Finally, data on crime, spying, and corporate espionage further illustrate the risks of treating a large, unassimilated Indian population as indistinguishable from the American people. Violent crime rates among Indian Americans are low which is consistent with broader Asian immigrant patterns driven by high education and selection effects. But white-collar and immigration-related offenses tell a different story. The Department of Justice has brought repeated cases against Indian nationals and Indian-owned firms for systemic H-1B visa fraud. Infosys, one of India’s largest IT giants, paid a record $34 million civil penalty to settle allegations of widespread misuse of B-1 visitor visas to perform skilled work that should have gone to Americans or properly authorized H-1B workers. Similar patterns appear across the “body shop” model that dominates Indian IT staffing in the US: fake job postings, benching workers, and circumventing labor protections to flood the market with lower-cost foreign labor.

National security concerns are even more direct. US authorities have charged Indian government employees and intelligence-linked operatives in plots targeting dissidents on American soil. In one high-profile case, the DOJ indicted Vikash Yadav, an Indian government employee allegedly tied to RAW (India’s external intelligence agency), in a murder-for-hire conspiracy against a U.S. citizen Sikh activist in New York City. These incidents echo broader patterns of foreign influence operations where Indian intelligence monitors and pressures critics of the Indian diaspora inside the United States.

On the corporate front, while India is not the dominant player in economic espionage compared to China, DOJ prosecutions have documented cases of Indian nationals stealing trade secrets in tech, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals often downloading proprietary data before returning home or feeding it to Indian competitors. Each instance represents not random criminality but a foreseeable byproduct of mass immigration from a country whose cultural, political, and economic incentives do not align with full loyalty to American sovereignty.

The bottom line is simple: Indians are not Americans. They are a high-achieving, endogamous, and politically organized foreign diaspora whose presence in large numbers imposes real costs on American wages, cultural cohesion, political independence, and national security. High household incomes do not magically transform outsiders into insiders, nor do they erase the fundamental truth that America is not India. Continuing to import millions more while ignoring assimilation failures, fraud rings, and espionage risks is not “enrichment”—it is replacement by another name. The American people have every right to demand that their government put their interests first, rather than subsidizing the growth of a parallel society that views the United States primarily as an economic opportunity and political lever for Indian ends. GDP be damned.

How to Support White Papers:

We keep our policy analysis free because we’re dedicated to the independence and prosperity of our people. But we rely on our paid subscribers to grow and thrive!

White Papers is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Consider giving to our mission using one of the methods below.

Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750