Candidate says he supports 'fair' immigration laws
We have another indication from Mitt Romney’s campaign that the Republican presidential candidate is fully on board with White genocide. This is not hyperbole. Under international law genocide need not be violent. Article II, Section C of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which has been adopted by 142 countries, defines genocide as: ‘Deliberately inflicting on [a racial, ethnic, cultural or religious] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’ This is precisely what the GOP standard-bearer endorses according to a Reuters article written by Steven Holland. He writes:
Mitt Romney favours more Third World immigration
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will pledge to Hispanics on Monday that if elected he will fix the troubled U.S. immigration system in an appeal to a rising voter bloc that overwhelmingly favors Democratic President Barack Obama.
Looking to rebound after a tough week in which he fell behind Obama in the polls, Romney will couple his immigration promises with a commitment to get a handle on America’s problem of rising national debt and massive budget deficits.
…Romney’s immigration remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce will be aimed at shoring up a weakness in his candidacy: the fact that a huge majority of Hispanics support Obama.
…”I believe we can all agree that what we need are fair and enforceable immigration laws that will stem the flow of illegal immigration, while strengthening legal immigration,” Romney will say.
Notice that last quote by Romney. He wants ‘fair’ immigration laws that will strengthen legal immigration. Considering that nearly all immigration into the United States today is from the Third World, Romney is clearly endorsing more Third World immigration. He simply wants the immigrants to have government papers.
Let’s go back to the definition of genocide. Policies which bring about the destruction of a people in whole or in part are genocide. The US population prior to the disastrous 1965 immigration act was roughly ninety percent White European. The people who pushed that act, including Ted Kennedy, promised that the demographic balance in the US would not be changed. They lied. Recently, the US media reported that Whites are now a minority among small children in the US. We are told that within a short period of time Whites will no longer be a majority in a country that was ninety percent White only a few decades ago. What we are talking about is genocide. Now we have word from the Romney camp that he supports this anti-White agenda. Romney wants to strengthen legal immigration, he says, meaning that he wants a less White America. Such policies, if implemented over the long-run, will obviously result in a non-White USA. Mitt Romney may say he supports ‘strengthening legal immigration’ but what that means is that he is anti-White.
From a Southern nationalist perspective, Romney’s proposal to ‘strengthen legal immigration’ would be a disaster for all native groups in the South. The various regional and micro-cultures which are already under siege throughout the Southern States would be under even more demographic pressure. For any cultural group or people to exist in the long run, they must have a homeland. Romney clearly puts cheap labour and Hispanic votes ahead of any concern for the well-being and survival of Southerners.
Update: Holly Bailey confirmed Romney’s commitment to supporting an anti-White agenda, writing today in a Yahoo News article:
Romney vowed to work with both Democrats and Republicans to achieve “a legal immigration system that is fair and efficient,” and would start by strengthening security on the nation’s borders. He said he would also “shift” diversity visas to “instead bring together immediate family members” and would allow immigrants who achieved an “advanced degree” to stay here.
“I want them to stay here, so I’d staple a green card to their diploma,” Romney said. “America is a nation of immigrants, and immigration is essential to our economic growth and prosperity. One million immigrants legally enter America every year—the largest number of any country in the world. I like that,” he added. “I want to preserve our heritage of robust legal immigration. And I want to make sure that those who abide by the law and wait in line to immigrate here legally are not at a disadvantage.”
Anything for a vote I guess. With each passing day, more and more people who are the descendants of those who founded this society will find out that they are on the outside looking in. People like Mitt don’t have the courage to just come out and say that Whites are undesirable people who should be targeted for replacement.
‘People like Mitt don’t have the courage to just come out and say that Whites are undesirable people who should be targeted for replacement.’
That’s true, Anti-Federalist. But I think it’s apparent to many more folks these days.
Does he have a chance to win the election? How come we don’t hear much about it here? Maybe because his son couldn’t give us a speech in French!
lol… Possibly so, Quebecindependant. As for his chances, I think he’s going to lose, but anything is possible, I suppose. It’s harder and harder for a Republican to win because most non-Whites vote Democrat along with about 1/3 or more of Whites. The Republicans, meanwhile, are about 90% White, even though their leaders (like Romney) are anti-White. And Whites are being replaced in the US. Therefore, we are quickly approaching a time when the Republicans will no longer be competitive in US presidential races.
And what about Ron Paul? As strange as it may seem he has many fans here!
Quebecindependant, I voted for Ron Paul in the GOP primary here in SC. However, he got only about 10% of the vote. Paul did poorly in the South, in general. There are many Christian-Zionists here and has seen by them as not militantly pro-Israel. I think that was his biggest problem in the South. I will say though that his supporters were very vocal. Nearly all of my family supported him. All my friends did. But amongst the retirees here (and we are flooded with Northern retirees) and the Evangelical Christian-Zionists he got very few votes.
Are you talking about “Stop islamisation of America” and that kind of movement? We heard about Spencer and Geller.
Quebecindependant, I don’t know about Spencer and Geller. I’m speaking of Dispensationalism. It’s very common here in the South and in general in Evangelical churches throughout the US. It’s relatively new in Christianity and pretty much unique to the US. John Hagee is a great example of this movement. He frequently visits Israel and gives a ton of money to them even though he is not Jewish. He promotes US militarism in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee
I’ve just read the article on Hagee. In my opinion, this guy needs a psychiatrist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8NTqenHBxY&feature=player_embedded
Awful.
He didn’t explain why his grandparents had to leave Mexico!
I recall quite vividly that Pastor John Hagee was frequently featured as a favorite of Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain. I knew back then that Hagee’s advocacy of dispensationalism, also known as “Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism” was one of the chief views by which he was known. As one who grew up in central and northeastern Alabama, I also grew up with this brand of Christian eschatology and did not know until my college years that it is a very new theory and phenomenon in Christianity, was not part of the thinking of the Church’s founders in the Apostolic Age, and is almost exclusive to the “low-church” and congregational sects of protestantism.