Immigration, Identity Politics, and the Way Forward

Overview on the immigration issue, identity politics, and the “Christian nationalist” way forward:

1. Combining open borders with a welfare state is a disaster — all the more so when welfare fraud allowed, and even encouraged by one political party (which is incentivized to keep the borders open because it adds to their voting block). Biden and other Democrats who opened the border are traitors. They won’t be punished for what they did, but the reality is that they could never be punished severely enough. They rejected the rule of law, and intentionally tried to destroy their own country. The immigration laws we had in place were not great – but they were written by elected legislators and signed into law by elected executives. The complete refusal to abide by those laws was the real “war on democracy.” It is rampant lawlessness.
2. The Great Replacement is real – but it’s important to understand that it is not merely people with white skin who are being replaced. The real target is the remaining vestiges of Christendom. While it is true that whites are being replaced by people with other skin colors in their own nations, the more fundamental “replacement” is Christian civilization being replaced with globo-homo secularism. The culture war might seem like a race war on the surface, but its actually a religious war.
3. Leftists hate the Bible and have no intention of ever submitting to it, but they will appeal to it when they think it will score them political points, which they can accomplish by taking texts out of context, putting forth half truths as if they were the whole, etc. Nowhere is this more evident than on the immigration issue. Leftists will cite passages from the Torah about kindness to immigrants, loving the alien, etc. But they leave out other factors, such as, (a) the same Torah required immigrants to assimilate to Israel’s law and way of life; (b) the Torah forbade proselytizing for false gods; (c) some people groups with a history of hostility to Israel were not allowed to become citizens for multiple generations because they could not be trusted to assimilate quickly. In short: There is absolutely nothing in biblical law that endorses open borders or would forbid a nation from deporting those who entered its territory illegally. The leftists do not have the moral high ground on the immigration issue – just the opposite. Leftists are not driven by compassion but by a desire to increase their power through expanding their voting base. Voters ensnared by suicidal empathy may think the leftwing position on immigration is kind and loving, but those voters are moral idiots. They’ve been duped into suiciding their own civilization.
4. Nations, as sovereign entities, can decide for themselves how to handle the immigration issue. America has generally been hospitable to immigrants, but the immigrants were expected to assimilate and generally came from similar enough nations that assimilation could happen within a reasonable timeframe. In the second half of the 20th century that changed, –and then the change really accelerated in the 21st century. Some of this is a function of growing liberalism, some of it is due to the rise of an anti-Christian spirit of self-loathing, some of it is due to missteps in American foreign policy. But none of it has been good for America. It is reasonable to expect a civil magistrate to act in the best interests of his own people, just as a father seeks the good of his own family. But we can no longer count on our magistrates to do what is best for their citizens — and that gets at the heart of our problem. Progressive American politicians, in particular, clearly hate the nation and people over whom they rule. Conservatives may have good talking points but have generally been too “nice” or fearful to stop the progressive freight train barreling down the tracks. Progressives have done a much better job using power to impose their ideology on the nation than conservatives have. That has to change.
5. I do not think white identity politics is the answer. In fact, I do not think anyone should be doing racial identity politics. Race is never a healthy fixation. It is true, in the abstract, that if a particular group is attacked as a group, that group can fight back as a group. But in the case of white Americans, this simply won’t work because (a) a lot of the anti-whiteness/anti-white discrimination in our culture actually comes from whites; (b) whites are ideologically divided between conservatism and progressivism, and ideology always trumps identity; (c) white identity politics is not a “winning strategy” because conservative whites already vote as a block and adding race to a conservative platform will not expand the coalition we already have (and might actually shrink it); (d) identity politics has a terrible track record of actually improving conditions for the identity group in question in the long run, e.g., the gender identity politics of feminism has not made women happier or better off; black identity politics has backfired by destroying the black family, murdering black babies in the womb, etc. There is no reason to think a white identity politics will actually lead to the greater flourishing of whites. A fixation on identity almost always seems to make the identity group lazy, entitled, etc.
6. Racial identity politics is always a distraction from the core issues. Worldview, or ideology, always trumps identity. Just look at how blacks in general treat black conservatives like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas. Blacks in general don’t celebrate their achievements despite shared skin color because of their politics. It’s not enough to be black to be considered black. It’s the same with feminism, which is a form of gender-based identity politics. For feminists, it’s not enough to simply be a woman. She must be a woman who makes the right choices (e.g., prioritizing career over motherhood; pro-abortion; etc.) to be included in “the club.” Feminists say they are pro-woman, but will viciously attack other women who do not share their ideology. They will criticize women who make different lifestyle choices, even as they claim to be pro-woman. It’s not really about the identity, it’s about the ideology. Only the right kind of woman can be considered part of “Team Woman.” Some say, “Everyone else is doing identity politics — why can’t whites?” But I think this misdiagnoses what’s actually going on.
7. The best treatment of anti-whiteness is Jeremy Carl’s book The Unprotected Class, but when Carl proposes solutions, he does not go the white identity politics route. The reality is that DEI, open borders, etc. are not just bad for white Americans, they hurt all Americans, including blacks and Hispanics. There are more electorally effective strategies than white identity politics to deal with the problems we face. Trump got elected two (or three) times without going the white identity politics route, so I cannot see that adding racial identity politics to a conservative political platform is going to increase power or influence for those on the right. The problem conservatives have is not getting elected; its having the guts and determination to use power for good once they have it.
8. Mass immigration is always destabilizing, especially when those immigrants come from a wildly different culture than their new host culture. The problem is exacerbated when there is no incentive (much less requirement) to assimilate. It’s not surprising, then, that groups of immigrants from the same place begin to function in a tribal way in their new nation, creating social balkanization, unrest, division, conflict, etc. The left can use the mantra “Diversity is our strength,” “The Somalis are just as American as you,” etc., but these are just lies — politically calculated lies. Sadly, in America and much of Europe, irreparable harm has already been done. But we must use all the political power we can muster to reverse and forever end mass immigration. American culture is worth preserving. The American way of life is worth fighting for.
9. Finally, there is one way of looking at identity that can provide a thick enough sense of who we are and enough political/ethical content to fix what ails us: a Christian identity politics. This is what Christian nationalism, as I understand it, is really about. The Christian faith not only provides a theology of nations and national identity that can underwrite strong borders (Acts 17:26), it provides the kind of policy content we need to solve our other problems as well, e.g., the disintegration of the family, drug and porn addiction, abortion, gay “marriage,” transgenderism, etc. It is impossible to make America great without making America Christian — so we should do the kind of thing Charlie Kirk was famous for doing, namely, move seamlessly between evangelism/apologetics for the faith, and application of the faith to the public square.

ADDENDUM: “But a lot of Roman Catholics from South America came over the border so this isn’t about Christianity.” That misses the bigger picture. When the border was wide open, ANYONE could come in. So, yes, that included some South American RCs. But the philosophy that drives all this is explicitly anti-Christian. Obama was the first president to openly declare “America is not a Christian nation,” and immigration is a big reason (though not the only reason) why he said that.

ADDENDUM: Note I never said the problem is not “anti-whiteness.” Rather, I put the anti-whiteness in a historical, civilizational, and theological context. Anti-whiteness did not from nowhere. The anti-whiteness is actually about something much deeper – and it’s more spiritual than political.

A lot of anti-whiteness comes from white people who are full of unresolved guilt over what “their people” have done (or what they think “their people” have done). White guilt drives a lot of the anti-whiteness. The solution to that guilt (insofar as it is real) is forgiveness found in the gospel and (insofar as it is false) it is getting the history right. Those things will not be solved by a “white identity politics” (whatever that means).

For example, I advocate for undoing at least parts of the civil rights regime. I’m for free association. But as things stand, civil rights legislation actually makes it illegal to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race in hiring practices. (Remember, Jeremy Carl suggests lawfare as one answer to the problem.) As things stand right now, whites might fare even worse without civil rights laws. Many whites are trying to atone for past “sins” by prioritizing “diversity” in who they hire. But why and how did “diversity” become such a priority? Yes, there was some legal/political encouragement to it (affirmative action, race and gender quotas, etc.) but A LOT of it is voluntary.

I don’t think you’re going to solve the anti-white discrimination problem merely through political means because it’s much more than a political problem. We are talking about the metanarrative within which people think they are living.

In the Jacob Savage article, the people who denied him opportunity were older white men. Adding pro-whiteness to a conservative political platform is not going to change the minds of those older white men. They’re not conservative anyway and they really think they’re being virtuous by discriminating against other whites.

Theres an analogy with the sexual revolution: hatred of monogamous marriage is a thing in itself, but it’s very much driven by an underlying hatred of Christ and the gospel, which is obvious since marriage was patterned after it’s archetype of Christ’s union with his bride the church. Attempts to reject or redefine or destroy marriage are, at the deepest level, motivated by a hatred for Christ and his bride. The gospel is marital and marriage depicts the gospel.

ADDENDUM: See https://x.com/vicar1973/status/2010089050183520705?s=46&t=au-C34qTtl4rGPFr5igkAw

Your proposals are fine, but I don’t think it comes close to solving the problem as it exists “on the ground.”

Some anti-white discrimination is just old fashioned racism – non-whites who have chosen to despise whites.

But the real impetus for anti-whiteness in our society comes from various forms of progressivism – feminism, Marxism, etc. Most of these people are white. Their anti-whiteness is a form of self-loathing, no doubt. But they also think it’s just and virtuous. They think they’re doing a good work when they discriminate against whites.

Technically anti-white discrimination in hiring is as illegal as any other form of racial discrimination. When Jacob Savage was told by a Hollywood executive, “I love your work, but we can’t have an all-white writers room,” Savage should have said, “My lawyer will be contacting you and I’ll see you in court.” But Savage just accepted it because (as a progressive) deep down he thinks what happened to him was just and deserved. He had no will to actually fight back. He has no answer.

Even as the Trump administration tries to eliminate things like DEI in college admissions, the same people in charge just keep finding new ways to exclude whites in disproportionate numbers. This is a cancer that is very hard to kill. And, again, the people carrying it out are very committed to anti-white discrimination because they see it as just and good.

It’s very hard to find a way to legally end this kind of discrimination because it is so deeply embedded. Close to half the country thinks it’s righteous. They will brag about discriminating against whites as a way of virtue signaling.

It’s not clear to me that there’s a legal way to fix it from the top down. We already have laws that forbid racial discrimination – but they can be very difficult to enforce in these kinds of cases. And I don’t think things like affirmative action for whites have any chance – and again, that would be messy to enforce, would require massive bureaucratic oversight that would likely do more harm than good, etc.

There are some supposed conservatives who are confused enough to go along with anti-whiteness (eg, Matt Chandler saying he’d hire the Hispanic 6 over the Anglo 8, or J D Greear bragging about appointing women and people of color to SBC positions). But this problem comes from a progressive ideology that has infected almost half the country. They will continue to defend anti-whiteness the same way some people will keep attacking ICE agents, thinking they are part of some kind of righteous resistance movement. We are dealing with religious zealots – with a new kind of Pharisee.

The only way to fix it is to get progressives to change their definition of justice. That’s why I think this is, at root, a religious war, even if it sometimes presents as a race war. The anti-white discrimination is a symptom of a deeper underlying problem that, frankly, no politics can fix.