pull down to refresh
I appreciate the candor. One thing that stands out to me is that this exact “power shift” theory predates today’s immigration debate by a long time.
In White America (originally 1923; later reissued), Earnest Sevier Cox lays out a scenario where demographic change leads to political dependency and ends with “a mixed-breed would sit as President” (his phrasing). That’s essentially the same structure as modern “replacement” rhetoric: not just debating “how much immigration,” but claiming that legitimacy and power are inherently tied to ancestry and a specific cultural baseline.
That’s why I’m exploring the “90-year funnel” idea: the core question of who counts as a legitimate member or leader appears early in explicit texts, then resurfaces later in organized policy and campaign language, sometimes channeled through immigration policy, sometimes through voting rules and questions of political representation.
You can see the same “who legitimately represents whom” dispute playing out in current Section 2 and redistricting cases, which the Supreme Court is revisiting again.
I don't think there would be nearly as much racial animosity surrounding the immigration debate were it not for a serious and successful attempt at implementing a policy of open borders combined with a nanny state explicitly organized around addressing racial grievances against one particular group. If the rate of new immigration were fixed at zero in the 90's, I'd expect people would be much more accepting of a definition of American based on a simple legal precedent. But instead we have birth tourism and annual floods of tens of millions of people motivated to immigrate purely for economic convenience, along with calls for a white minority to pay them back somehow. Of course people lose respect for the legal definition of American in that environment. It's become obvious that the left intends to abuse the immigration system as a political attack on what remains of the white population.