Issue of the Century

The Zeroth Amendment

July 19, 2017

Multiple Pages
The Zeroth Amendment

A little-known survey revealed the single most decisive reason Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton: White Democrats have drifted into ideological extremism over not regulating immigration.

By way of background, a general problem in political science with using polls to track ideological trends over the years is that you want to keep asking the same questions to see how voters’ responses evolve. But that means that pollsters seldom ask about new beliefs that would have seemed bizarre even in the recent past.

In turn, pundits, lacking polling data to write about, don’t even mention historic developments, such as the rise of mainstream antiwhite American hate discourse over the past half decade. For most mainstream journalists to notice their own increasingly vicious racist attitudes would be like a fish noticing it is wet.

Because I have a better-than-average historical sense, I’ve been pointing out for the past few years that American elites are mindlessly floating toward an unspoken belief in the sacredness of what I call the Zeroth Amendment: that American citizens should get no say in who gets to move to America because huddled masses of non-Americans possess civil rights to immigrate, no questions asked. And this Zeroth Amendment overrides the obsolete First Amendment, so you aren’t allowed to question it.

Last December, Professor Eric Kaufmann of the London School of Economics had YouGov ask the kind of question that would have struck pollsters as absurd not long ago:

“A white American who identifies with her group and its history supports a proposal to reduce immigration. Her motivation is to maintain her group’s share of the population for cultural reasons. Is this person a) racist, b) racially self-interested, which is not racist, c) don’t know.”

These days, of course, “racist” means…hateful…intolerable…unthinkable. Calling someone “racist” is now approaching a blood libel. The word “racist” is increasingly a dog whistle for violence by masked blackshirts against anyone so demeaned.

“For the American majority to lose our Constitutional right to control the quantity and quality of immigration would be the absolute ruin of the American republic.”

The differences among white voters were stark: Only 11 percent of white Trump voters labeled as racist the view that American whites have a moral right to vote that the immigration system not be exploited to drive them into political and cultural impotence.

In contrast, 73 percent of Hillary’s white voters think that it’s racist for white Americans to have an opinion on who gets to immigrate.

Strikingly, Hillary’s white supporters were more radical in denouncing whites as racists than were her nonwhite backers. Only 58 percent of Hillary’s nonwhite voters labeled Kaufmann’s hypothetical white woman as racist. Kaufmann observes:

Minority voters are slightly more likely to back the “racist” interpretation than whites, 45–36, but this 12-point difference is dwarfed by the 62-point gap within White America between Clinton and Trump voters.

The longer the university indoctrination of the white Hillary voters, the more unhinged they were about this slander. Among white Clinton supporters with a college degree, 84 percent said it was racist for whites to be allowed to favor whites in immigration policy. Among Hillary’s whites with advanced degrees, 91 percent agreed.

A federal circuit judge has since discovered hidden in the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution the Zeroth Amendment: “The President shall enforce no law respecting an establishment of borders, or prohibiting the free crossing thereof.” (The Supreme Court doesn’t yet agree, but without any current Republican justices agreeing to retire and be replaced, this non-hallucinatory reading of the Constitution seems doomed.)

I may have first noticed this growing anti-borders zealotry the day before 9/11 when Bill Clinton, huckstering for cash in Australia, commended “the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world.” The Clintons shut up about this for a while after getting away with that, but by the 2010s this it’s-not-broken-so-break-it worldview was back in force. Granted, nobody except the most Aspergery libertarians argues in favor of a borderless world, but the center-left increasingly assumes its desirability.

To the Clintonites, it’s not an argument that needs to be won in fair debate, or even is desirable to discuss as if it’s open to argument. To be precise, they assume the deplorability of anybody who doesn’t share their assumption.

In contrast, old-time leftists can be wild cards: Bernie Sanders, for example, in 2015 cogently demolished open borders as a Billionaire Liberation Front stalking horse:

Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein: Really?

Bernie Sanders: Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States….

Ezra Klein: But it would make…

Bernie Sanders: Excuse me…

Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?

Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation-state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that.

Unfortunately, Bernie is easy to bully, so by 2016 he sounded just like Hillary on immigration. Sure, massive immigration is bad for Americans, but it’s good for Democratic politicians, so whaddaya whaddaya?

As you know and I know, this latest Democratic orthodoxy is innumerate lunacy. There are 21.7 foreigners on Earth for every resident of America. For the American majority to lose our Constitutional right to control the quantity and quality of immigration would be the absolute ruin of the American republic.

In a July 13 article calling for open borders, The Economist magazine noted:

Gallup, a pollster, estimated in 2013 that 630m people—about 13% of the world’s population—would migrate permanently if they could, and even more would move temporarily…. So the Gallup numbers could just as well be too low. Today there are 1.4bn people in rich countries and 6bn in not-so-rich ones. It is hardly far-fetched to imagine that, over a few decades, a billion or more of those people might emigrate if there were no legal obstacle to doing so.

Amusingly, this article is locked away behind the closed borders of The Economist’s paywall. Not so amusingly, open borders, combined with the African population explosion, would devastate whichever country was so foolish as to adopt it.

The test case is Puerto Rico, a Third World nation that enjoys open borders with the United States. Despite a per capita GDP almost triple the world average, Puerto Rico is currently depopulating, with about three-fifths of all Puerto Ricans now in the mainland U.S.

Similarly, being able to choose which immigrants to accept is central to national sovereignty. Countless countries enforce discriminatory policies. For example, Israel recruits Jews from around the world and blocks virtually everyone else, building formidable walls along its borders and actively deporting those who got in earlier.

Japan allowed Brazilians who were racially Japanese to immigrate (although Japan has found them less than satisfactory: Nurture matters as well as nature).

Singapore, perhaps the most competently governed state, has a national immigration policy of maintaining racial balance (i.e., a Chinese majority: The ruling Chinese have lower birth rates in Singapore so their co-ethnics back home are allowed to immigrate in larger numbers).

Switzerland, the Singapore of Europe, lets each neighborhood vote on whether to allow individual immigrants to naturalize. For example, in 2015, an outspoken vegan activist who had lived in Switzerland for 34 years was rejected for Swiss citizenship by a 144–62 vote of her annoyed neighbors.

In the 1990s, Germany gave preference to return to the land of their ancestors to tenth-generation Volga Germans, recruited to farm in central Russia by Czarina Catherine the Great.

Spain is legally partial to Latin Americans (although their rapid influx caused massive unemployment after 2008).

I could go on and on with reasonable examples of how racial and cultural preferences in immigration rules are perfectly compatible with high levels of civilization, but that’s hardly the point. The reason a substantial number of Americans have been cajoled into believing it’s vile for white citizens to have any say in who their future fellow citizens will be is because promiscuous immigration is good for billionaires and Democrats.

In reality, it’s corrupting for a country to allow politicians to import ringers to vote for them, and potentially catastrophic when the bosses encourage their new charges to be hostile and demanding toward the natives. But in the U.S., nonwhite politicians are encouraged to import as many co-ethnics to vote for themselves as they can round up. Democratic strategists frequently boast of how they will soon achieve one-party rule in Washington by hauling in nonwhite immigrants. (In contrast, it never occurs to Republicans to ask in white refugees, such as South African farmers.)

Rigging the electoral process is obviously unethical, so Democrats and their PR flacks in the press constantly denounce as the epitome of immorality any stirrings of resistance. Thus, you hear over and over about the plagues of white privilege and racism, while the topic of how the Democrats are trying to steal the country through foreign collusion is left unmentioned. The best defense is a good offense.

Kaufmann notes experimental evidence suggesting that the pro-immigration side doesn’t so much try to win democratic debates as to terrify the majority into silence:

Other work suggests norms not only lead people to frown on voting for the far right, but even prompt them to hide their views on immigration. Using a “list experiment” that measures average sentiment but permits individuals to conceal their answers, Alexander Janus discovered that 60% of White Americans supported cutting immigration to zero when their identities were concealed, compared to 39% when their identities were known to the researcher. Self-censorship was especially pronounced among the university-educated.

Self-censorship is prudent. Violence against immigration skeptics is increasing, as are you’ll-never-work-in-this-town-again career consequences. For example, Texas rock band Dream Machine was last month dropped by its label after a legal immigrant member expressed cynicism about illegal immigration.

Recently, Kaufmann’s question was repeated in a number of countries around the world. The U.S. came out the most fanatic with 36 percent denouncing an intelligent immigration policy as racist, versus only 13 percent in South Africa. Of course, South Africans were not asked about whites, they were asked whether Xhosas should be tarred as racist for preferring Xhosas. The Xhosas’ hostile view of black immigrants from the rest of Africa is spelled out in the immigration allegory movie District 9, but few American critics even noticed, since the anti-majoritarian conventional wisdom isn’t really based on political philosophy, it’s based on antiwhite racist animus.

In other words, this question isn’t about whether the majority in a particular country has the right to limit immigration, but whether whites should possess democratic rights like everybody else.

The Current Year’s short answer: no.

It’s the new White Man’s Burden. In 1899, it was to invade the world. In 2017, the White Man’s Burden is to invite the world.

Daily updates with TM’s latest