This essay will look into the development of policies such as multiculturalism, diversity and affirmative action in America. The permeation of these ideologies into America and subsequently Britain and western civilisation generally has been a constant since the Civil Rights era. These agendas have become institutionalised into Irish society in recent years but as we shall see, they have been institutionalised into American society for far longer.
Our analysis will take a look at the cultural development of America, the Civil Rights era and the movement for equal treatment before explaining the shift to “equal outcome” oriented policies which were a product of the state bureaucracies seeking a more quantifiable measure of their affirmative action policies. Affirmative action was supposed to be a temporary policy to do away with the lingering effects of the previous segregationist era and was solely dedicated to the historical groups affected by discrimination in America such as African Americans.
Instead, the expansionist immigration policies of the 1965 Immigration Act and subsequent judicial activism would end up creating self perpetuating waves of immigration from outside of Europe, demographically transforming the country and giving rise to the phenomenon of ethnic lobbying for similar treatment as “ethnic minority groups”. A new communitarian form of legal interpretation ascribed the rights of Americans to anyone who made it to the country, completely breaking with tradition and established understandings of American immigration law.
The burgeoning Civil Rights push took on an anti-colonial ideology and thereby developed a new interpretation of Marxist class struggle where race replaced class and “whiteness” became an original sin that justified never-ending redistribution and revolutionary activity. Central to all of this was a new form of cosmopolitanism where the elites, particularly in academia, determined it necessary to apply universalist notions of western civilisation having no intrinsic ethnic, racial or cultural ties and instead being a guardian of increasingly abstract and ungrounded definitions of social liberalism and human rights.
American Immigration Policy until 1965
As a nation founded by revolutionaries, historical America has to be seen as a departure from traditional European civilisation but still an offshoot with extensive links, particularly to Britain. This culture was exemplified by concepts like anti-monarchism, individualism, liberalism and the concept of sovereignty. Perhaps most importantly of all America was culturally Anglo and Protestant, meaning this was the norm into which assimilation had to occur. Over time a separate nationality and ethnicity developed, a defined and structured society that was newer but which took on a European form. There is however a major contradiction at the heart of American nationhood.
“In establishing American nationality on the basis of abstract social and political ideas, Protestant Americans of British background had in fact committed the nation to a principle that made it inconsistent to erect particularist ethnic criteria into tests of true Americanism.”1
Ethnicity came to be crucial in helping new arrivals to integrate into America. Typically, immigrants of European stock maintained various degrees of attachment to their homelands. Ethnic communities developed with self contained ecosystems of churches, parochial schools and other community structures based on their own religious and cultural background. This usually proceeded to become “symbolic ethnicity” as the migrants of European stock melded into the fabric of America as the generations progressed.2
America’s classical immigration policy was developed in the 1880’s with the relationship between the government and alien based on the “private-law relationship between a landowner and a trespasser,” whereby the government represented only those consented to. Indeed the power of the government to decide who gained admission was retained by the government exclusively and this is typified by the upholding of the exclusion of Chinese labourers in 1889 by the Supreme Court.3
The very concept of American citizenship was only created by the 14th Amendment in 1868 and was solely about the “enfranchisement of black slaves.”4 In a frontier land such as America was up until the instigation of Immigration laws in the late 19th century, citizenship didn’t hold very much value. A similar situation existed in Britain who only created the concept of citizenship in the 1980’s to help deal with the raft of different ethnic groups and races then being settled there.
“Accordingly, the American Constitution and legal order make personhood and residence, rather than citizenship, protected categories”4
This is related to the hands-off, self regulatory nature of the Federal form of government that is practiced in America whereby people have rights and accordingly responsibilities that newcomers traditionally had to accept in order to function as a part of American society.
Since 1965 a process has been set in train which is linked to concepts such as universal rights regardless of national or ethnic origin being conferred on anyone, almost always outside of democratic or political channels. This will be explained as it happened but first we will look at how immigrants were to be integrated into American society.
The Melting Pot vs Cultural Pluralism
Immigrants to America were assimilated through a self regulating process involving a free market economy and an individualistic society where their original ethnicity helped to acclimatise them into the American population over generations. The vast majority of these people were of European origin and therefore were easier to acclimatise into American life. Within this system two particular models of integration were promoted, the melting pot and the idea of cultural pluralism.
The term “melting pot” was popularised by Israel Zangwill in a play called The Melting-Pot” in 1921. The essential premise of this concept is that through proximity, the various races and ethnic groups would meld over time with cultural cross pollination. The play itself is a rejection of the European cultural and racial underpinning of American society.
“In theory, it stipulated the bi-directional adjustment of immigrants and receiving society. In reality, it meant the uni-directional assimilation of immigrants into an already established Anglo-American culture.”5
The counter to the melting pot was cultural pluralism. It’s founder is seen as Horace Kallen. Cultural pluralism was essentially multiculturalism and viewed America as a “federation of nations.”6 In this way cultural pluralism was an attempt to maintain the traditional immigration pattern of America up until this time, namely immigrant groups maintained their ethnic identities and this helped them develop into the majority political culture of America. This is of course a paradox in that it renders America as nothing but an abstract idea, a point referenced consistently by conservatives in the intervening decades, even as the nature of immigration has altered completely.
“A Nation of Immigrants” – JFK
The cultural and social environment that framed the subsequent changes must be understood as part of a post war liberalising process. Having won WWII and defeated what was from here onwards represented as the defining example of appalling racism, eugenics and anti-Semitism, American culture was fundamentally set on a course that was incredibly difficult to change direction on. America took upon itself the role of global superpower and it’s culture of liberalism and equality was aggressively promoted internationally. As part of the Cold War from 1948, America sought to appear to be an open society in contrast with the cloistered and walled-off Stalinist Soviet Union from where people sought refuge in the land of the free. Institutions such as the Council on Foreign Relations re-positioned America as the global guarantor of freedom and human rights.
There is no time to explain the Anglo-American origins of post-war globalism but suffice to say it has a parallel, in that just as international groups and Think Tanks with lucrative sources of revenue supported these policies there was also the creation of powerful refugee and human rights networks.
“Since the end of WWII, both refugee and human rights groups have increasingly joined hands with philanthropic organisations, concerned individuals, churches, concerned ethnic lobbies, and others to create transnational human rights networks that span the globe.”7
Internationalism was the zeitgeist and as new international institutions were created such as the UN with global mandates and visions, the new universalism embodied therein was hostile to all types of nationalism that were to be portrayed as the cause of the previous wars. JFK played a role in this when in his book A Nation of Immigrants he attacked the National Origins Act of 1924 which had the objective of maintaining the western European character of the majority population in America with regard to the immigrants entitled to reside there.
In 1963 Kennedy would submit his first Bill to abolish the Act. It must be pointed out that Kennedy’s goal was not necessarily to open America to global waves of migrants but was to allow more southern Europeans such as Greeks and Italians into America. As we shall see, unintended consequences are still consequences and many of the people who advocated for such legislation at this time likely had little idea of it’s long term affects.
“Secondly, Kennedy’s selective reappraisal of ‘American traditions’ served a concrete interest; to cover the stigma of Catholicism in the first Presidential bid of a non-Protestant, and to build a Catholic-Jewish coalition against the Protestant establishment regarding immigration reform.”8
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had tried in 1960 to remove race as a category on the census schedule. This colour-blind mentality would not last for long however.9 While wartime alliances had smoothed the way for Asians being allowed in as migrants10 the Hart-Cellar Act of 1965 would become the most defining piece of American demographic history since.
The Hart-Cellar Act 1965
The Hart-Cellar Act was actually designed to even out intra-European migration flows which had traditionally favoured British and Irish over Poles and southern Europeans. The Bill itself had a number of measures that were designed to limit immigration in a number of ways, including a cap on Latin American and Canadian immigration and ending the Bracero guestworker programme which the labour unions were determined to get rid of.11
The most important aspect though was the linking of immigration to family reunification. This was explained as a means of limiting non-European immigration by Edmund Cellar, the sponsor of the Bill in the House of Representatives.
“There will not be…many Asians or Africans entering this country…Since the people of Africa and Asia have very few relatives here, comparatively few could immigrate from those countries because they have no family ties in the US.”12
The facts are that by 1980, 84% of immigrants to America were from outside of Europe. Only 5% of immigrants who came to America legally were from Europe.11 Meanwhile the phenomenon of chain migration set off a permanent migration from these regions as Hispanics and Asians used the law to bring in substantial families completely lawfully.13 A burgeoning set of lobbying organisations would protect these policies forever more and America was transformed against the wishes of the majority of the nation into a nation of immigrants from the third world.
Anti-Colonialism, Civil Rights & Cultural Revolution (from above)
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s did not start out as a movement about positive rights and “minority” groups but was in fact about inclusion. The cause of this shift was anti-colonialism and in this movement American blacks saw themselves as one. The authors of Black Power explained their reasoning thusly.
“Black Power means that black people see themselves as part of a new force, something called the “Third World”; that we see our struggle as closely related to liberation struggles around the world”14
Essentially American society was now to be seen as a product of “white supremacy” and a place that had to be completely reformed in order to better suit the needs of non-whites. In order to avoid the charge of being racist themselves, such theorists often claim that race is a “social construct” similarly to how 19th century sociologists like Max Weber defined ethnicity as a social construct developed solely to exclude others. The glaring hypocrisy being that while whites in western societies are told that they have no real culture and that their societies are just recent creations that can be altered closer to an imagined ideal, non-Europeans are told they have rich cultural diversity and are encouraged to maintain their cultures as part of the multicultural project.
The reality is that a pathological reflexive source of blame for perpetuity had been created, white people became the cause of all problems that befell a sacred minority. The irony being that the concept of heredity, previously applied to slaves, was now applied to another group in society who were to be forced to support the new minority classes through economic subsidy, educational opportunity and preferential treatment in the eyes of the law.
The work of anthropologist’s such as Franz Boaz, described as the “Father of American Anthropology” and Margaret Mead contributed to a relativistic approach to cultures and the denigration of race as a meaningful categorisation. This has to be understood as a political project rather than an empirically grounded one.
“Boaz did not arrive at the position from a disinterested scientific inquiry into a vexed if controversial question… There is no doubt that he had a deep interest in collecting evidence and designing arguments that would rebut or refute an ideological outlook – racism – which he considered restrictive upon individuals and undesirable for society…there is a persistent interest in pressing his social values upon the profession and the public.”15
The role of politics and idealistic claims of universal equality regarding all cultures and races isn’t the only example of politics leading scientific reality. Marxist class ideology would contribute to a further instilling of a revolutionary zeal to notions of race as a means for destroying western civilisation.
“Structurally equivalent to the Marxist class paradigm, the race paradigm stipulates one fundamentally inegalitarian principle underlying the organisation of society (race in lieu of class), accessible to a truth-depicting theory with a practical mission, emancipation – the one difference being that class is destined to be alolished, whereas a positive race identity will stay even after the sting of oppression has been pulled”16
After this specifically racially motivated philosophical change of direction, it was a short journey to the next stages of “affirmative action” and the creation of an ever expanding set of rights and of groups that were entitled to them. Third generation Critical Theorist Douglas Kellner states that Marcuse
“reflected(ed) upon the potential for liberation in Third World revolutionary movements, the possibilities of solidarity between those organisations and racial forces in the highly industrialised countries, and the potential for emancipatory social transformation in the New Left, student anti-war movement, feminism, black power, and other social forces of the era.”17
Neither assimilationism nor cultural pluralism, a new paradigm of cultural destruction in line with the ideas of radical theorists associated with groups such as the so-called “Frankfurt school” became dominant in the Universities of America, having been brought to places such as Colombia University using money from the Rockefeller Foundation. 18 The subject deserves more detailed exploration but what must be understood is that these ideas were picked up by the elite in the west and after influencing the 1960’s counter culture, would go on to further pathologise white western society after spreading from the Universities to government bureaucracies and the fortune 500.
“One of the principle weapons developed by the Frankfurt School is ‘Critical Theory,’ which involves the destructive analysis of the principles of Western civilisation including religion, family, morality, tradition, and nationalism.”19
The theories developed by the Frankfurt School were taken on and championed by elements of the American power structure, already heavily permeated by Fabian socialist ideas themselves. The use of radical ideologies and their subsidy through liberal foundations and even agencies of the US government is not as strange as it may seem however as Kerry Bolton relates.
“A strategy of dialectics means backing movements in the short term to achieve quite different, even opposite goals, in the long term.”20
Affirmative Action and Minorities
The first appearance of the phrase “affirmative action” was made by JFK in his Executive order of March 1961 in the context of ensuring that government contractors hiring practices had no discrimination over race. Kennedy called for
“affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”21
The problem was that it was a very vague and difficult to prove whether discrimination was actually happening. Hence it was decided that a more empirical method was required where results could be measured easier. This was a purely institutional and bureaucratic phenomenon rather than the product of intense lobbying. It was decided to deliberately hire American blacks based on quotas, a radical change that was initially assumed to be temporary until equality had been achieved.22
“There is no doubt that the crafters of the original Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts had only the descendents of black slaves in mind…But the colour-blind logic of civil-rights law did not name its main addressee – instead, it spoke abstractly of “citizens”, “individuals”, or “persons” who were to be protected from discrimination on the ground of “race, colour, religion, or national origin”. Ironically, this group-indifferent formulation became the inroad for groups other than black to claim minority status.”22
In 1977 the Office of Management and Budget “acknowledged four racial and ethnic categories,” White, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and Black. Ethnicity is broken down into “Hispanic Origin” and “Not of Hispanic Origin.” In another example of bureaucratic over-reach, it is unknown how this was decided upon.23 The 1980 census added numerous further categories and displays the imprint of intense ethnic group lobbying.
“In response to such criticisms, the Census Bureau formed three advisory committees for the Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations in the preparation of the 1980 Census questionaire. Each committee, staffed more with ethnic activists than with demographers and statistitions, pushed for measures to increase the count of it’s constituents, or to make its constituents more visible on the census form.”23
Judicial Activism & Asylum
In addition to affirmative action there has been a shift to a more “communitarian” form of law which differs profoundly from classical immigration control. This has been almost entirely the result of judicial activism and not any popular mandate.
“Motivated by the anti-discriminatory impetus of the civil-rights era, courts have extended constitutional protections beyond the immigrants, and even first-time entrants, such as asylum-seekers.”24
A 1971 Supreme Court decision found that States had no right to withhold welfare benefits from resident aliens, arguing “In a typical example of communitarian reasoning” that “aliens were active members of society who, like citizens, paid taxes and contributed with their work and capital to public welfare.”25
In 1982 the Supreme Court ruled that the children of illegal immigrants were entitled to free public education, a broadening of the national community to “uncertain dimensions,” even disregarding congressional policy to limit illegal immigration.26
Although the Supreme Court has ruled in line with traditional immigration law at times, the lower courts have been even more radical in attempting to grant illegal immigrants full rights. The “emergent law of asylum” allows “any alien to acquire rights against the government to which the latter has not expressly consented.”27
The Refugee Act of 1980 separated refugee and immigration policy. It incorporated the United Nations 1951 definition of refugee and allowed for “non-refoulement” which meant that refugees were automatically entitled to rights at the Federal level and could not be returned to the origin country if they were seen to be in danger.28 Immediately after the passing of the Act Fidel Castro began using it to attack the US with a wave of Weaponised Migration to embarrass the US government. For a detailed explanation of this phenomenon see this article.
“The vast majority of asylum applications are not made at the borders or ports of entry, but while already on US territory. This is because applying for asylum is a no-cost game for illegal entrants to avoid deportation.”29
Throughout the 80’s, the courts eased to demands that could be made of migrants. Using false documentation no longer meant automatic grounds for dismissal. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that a lower standard of proof of persecution was necessary for asylum applications. Even being homosexual became grounds for an asylum claim.30
In 1990 the Justice Department set out new asylum rules including giving asylum applicants the benefit of the doubt with “a refugee definition considerably looser than the UN convention refugee definition.” Corroboration was no longer necessary for applicants as the policy shifted from “deterence “ to “fair adjudication.” Asylum applicants from countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala were now allowed apply for asylum, having been previously barred from doing so.30
The reason for the about face on much of this was after pressure from the “sanctuary movement” which is a coalition of church leaders, synagogues, social workers, and human-rights lawyers, who had filed suit against the Government in May 1985. The sanctuary movement includes cities such as Los Angeles and Sacramento and has grown substantially since this time.
“The government now explicitly obliged itself to rule out foreign policy, border control, and the applicants country of origin as criteria of asylum determination.”31
Very little grounds remained to deny access to any migration into America.
Extending Minority Rights Outside of African Americans
As alluded to above, the term “minority” has broadened out to include anyone not of European origin. It is based on ones racial, ethnic and religious background and the various historiography that has been applied to define a groups relationship to white people. Selective use of historical facts and some outright lies are often incorporated to ensure a groups position within the hierarchy.
“Race is different. Its content is not a positive heritage (however modified) transplanted into the new society, but the negative experience of oppression at the hands of the receiving society.”32
Minority status is an “unintended consequence of compensating the historical victims of American nation-building.” This is a development from within elite education rather than a natural expression of malfeasance on the part of migrants.32 It is the Marxist class paradigm transposed to racial groups and coincides with the Gramscian tactic of creating broad coalitions of racial, homosexual and other types of victim groups to attack the center of society in the latter part of the 20th century.
Minority status is awarded to any ethnic group not of European origin who has gained access to a European derived society like America or even European societies themselves. Effectively, America became a nation of ethnic groups who were owed something from the white population by the reasoning that being non-white renders one a victim of “white supremacy” or “oppression”. Displaying the double-think and cynicism of this paradigm, slavery is cited as a frequent justification for current institutional bias in favour of non-whites while Islamic slavery is ignored as Muslims have also been granted their own share of the minority benefits.
Of course this double-think extends to claims that western society is “institutionally racist”, a popular claim emanating from elite academia where it is claimed that non-Europeans are being targeted by the institutions of the state for repression, a patently absurd notion when we look at the record outlined in this essay demonstrating the opposite to be empirically the case. Unfortunately, the truth is that these notions have become institutionalised and a massive bureaucracy with considerable powers, has ensured that there is nowhere to hide.
Most remarkable of all has been the extension of this paradigm outside of it’s historic home through powerful international NGO’s, elite academia and international institutions as well as it forming part of the dominant Anglo-American culture of the west post WWII era. Douglas Murray relates a telling exchange with an academic in Germany regarding how the elite opinion-former’s view western civilisation and what they see as it’s future.
“In Berlin during the height of the crisis I spoke with a German intellectual who told me that German people were anti-Semetic and prejudiced and that for this reason they deserved to be replaced.”33
The Origins of Diversity
Immigrants other than American blacks were bestowed with minority status based on a 1978 Supreme Court case where a “white applicant for medical school had sued the University of California for race-based discrimination.” Minority groups were granted admission despite often achieving “significantly lower academic credentials.”34 The decisive vote came down to Justice Powell who’s comments are worth referencing.
“Powell also stated that as a means of reaching’educational diversity’ universities could take race into account as ‘a plus’ factor (among others) that sometimes ‘tips the balance’ in an applicant’s favour.”35
The justification for such bias was that “selecting a racially diverse student body would promote academic excellence through enabling a wider and more robust exchange of ideas.”34 A new justification for affirmative action had been created, one which would spread throughout western civilisation. America was now destined to become a “nation of minorities” rather than simply a nation of immigrants who became Americans over time. No protections were to be made to the majority population who had created the country or their right to maintain a particular set of values or even to maintain their demographic ownership of the historic American nation.
By the 1990’s multiculturalism was complete orthodoxy in government and institutions with powerful lobby groups and organisations fighting for every last dollar and concession. School and college curriculums were being reformed to take into account multicultural values. Native-tongue education and anti-colonial demands have removed entire subjects and fundamentally altered what students are allowed be taught. In fact, the elite universities are the creators of much of the justification for the multicultural and diversity agendas themselves.
“Universities, particularly the very best, have been champions of multiculturalism, even avant la letre: establishing ethnic and women’s studies programmes since the late 1960’s; recruiting minority students according to their population share since the 1970’s; diversifying the curriculum and enforced recruiting minority faculty since the 1980’s”36
A more aggressive ethnic identity is promoted for minorities and has in many ways been a product of the elite universities themselves. For example Hispanics have also taken on minority rights based on “the black power model” by adopting a “Chicano” identity based around a sense of racial belonging with all people of that particular racial makeup, whether they be inside the borders of America or elsewhere in Latin America.37
“The secluded world of ethnic-studies programmes and humanity departments is prone to generate rampant multiculturalism, with all-out attacks on the old melting-pot ideal and pedantic quibbles such as if ‘Hispanics’ are better called Latinos.”38
A notable trend in western society that has paralleled the multicultural project has been the proliferation of ethnic enclaves throughout western societies. This includes the now infamous “no-go zones” most frequently associated with Islamic populations and the burgeoning black “drill rap” scene which apes cliched stereotypes of black masculinity, criminality and dominance promoted through American “ganster rap” culture. A constant hallmark of such cultural phenomena is a sense of not belonging and a hyper-aggressive sense of ethnic identity and loyalty to ones own tribe combined with a righteous indignation over perceived grievances and injustices suffered inter-generationally at the hands of white society.
The issues with integrating Africans into an individualistic European culture has been addressed by Jomo Kenyatta, “the father of Kenyan independence” who explained some of the major differences between Europe and African social norms and why an increasingly powerful set of institutions has taken it upon themselves to forcefully blend these populations after failing to do so quietly in previous decades.
“Europeans assume that, given the right knowledge and ideas, personal relations can be left largely to take care of themselves, and this is perhaps the most fundamental difference in outlook between Africans and Europeans.”39
Conclusion
This essay has focused on a series of events in America that have undoubtedly led to the current positive rights regime imposed in Western society largely emanating from elite institutions and patronage. This regime is being imposed in Ireland in a very aggressive manner as evidenced by the plans for Ireland’s new government to impose “set targets for ethnic minorities employed in public service” in addition to many other existing institutional minority incentive structures.40
Another example is the opening of asylum centers throughout the heart of rural Ireland against the wishes of a clear majority of these towns. Such an agenda is driven institutionally and an entire essay would be required to explain how this process came to be.
Such policies have been implemented in America and Britain for decades and have not eased “race relations” to any significant degree. In fact these policies instigate a sense of dislike and distrust of the native European populations who have had these populations moved to their countries outside of their wishes. Instigating “hate-crime” legislation is but another example of a disastrous tendency to further empower minorities to subdue the natives. It must be resisted with relish in order to maintain long fought for rights under the law and to prevent ones motives being prejudged by ideologically motivated activists.
- Walzer cited in Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 44.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 149.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 44.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 142.[↩][↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 147.[↩]
- Kallen cited in Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 147.[↩]
- Kelly M. Greenhill, Weapons of Mass Migration, (Cornell University Press, 2010) 46.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 24.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 158.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 25.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 27.[↩][↩]
- Cellar cited in Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 26.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 28.[↩]
- Ture & Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation, (Vintage Books, 1992) p. xix.[↩]
- Degler cited in Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (1st Books Library, 2002) 22.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 153.[↩]
- Kellner cited in Clare Ellis, The Blackening of Europe: Ideologies & International Developments Paperback, (Arktos Media, 2020) .[↩]
- Kerry Bolton, Revolution From Above, (Arktos Media, 2011) 101.[↩]
- Buchanan cited in Kerry Bolton, Revolution From Above, (Arktos Media, 2011) 102.[↩]
- Kerry Bolton, Revolution From Above, (Arktos Media, 2011) 9.[↩]
- Mills cited in Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 154.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 155.[↩][↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 156.[↩][↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 45.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 46.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 47.[↩]
- Schuck cited in Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 47.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 50.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 51.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 53.[↩][↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 54.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 143.[↩][↩]
- Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe, (Bloomsbury Continuum, 2018) 270.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 160.[↩][↩]
- Eastland cited in Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 160.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 174.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 180.[↩]
- Christian Joppke, Immigration and the Nation-State, (Oxford University Press, 1999) 181.[↩]
- Jomo Kenyatta cited in Stephen Smith, The Scramble for Europe, (Polity Press, 2019) 54.[↩]
- Philip Ryan, “New Government to set targets for ethnic minorities employed in public service,” June 14, 2020, https://www.independent.ie/incoming/new-government-to-set-targets-for-ethnic-minorities-employed-in-public-service-39285140.html.[↩]
