NYT Hits Restrictionists

The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media

“According to tax documents, Colcom has funded not only FAIR and other large organizations Mrs. May helped create, but also lesser known one like the American Immigration Control Foundation, which has likened immigration to a ‘military conquest’ with the effect of ‘substantially replacing the native population.’ “ – The New Nativists – Why a Banking Heiress Spent Her Fortune on Keeping Immigrants Out, Nicholas and Mike McIntire, 8/14/19 [Link]

Fact Check of Above Quote: This article is basically a hit piece against the immigration restriction movement, one evidence being the use of the smear word “nativists” to describe restrictionists. Users of this smear try to suggest there is something inappropriate or immoral about the citizens of a country, i.e., its natives, deciding what kind of immigration policy they want. Democratic government is a proper term to describe that kind of decision-making.

The main theme of the article is that a wealthy heiress, Cordelia May, created the Colcom Foundation, which in turn funded a number of restrictionist groups. The article tries to suggest that Mrs. May and this network are suspect and disreputable.

Example are the quotes from the American Immigration Control Foundation. The article presents the quotes as if it is self-evident that they are flawed. It does so with dishonesty. AIC Foundation has never claimed that immigration per se amounts to conquest. Immigration at reasonable levels can be beneficial. What we condemn is the kind of massive unrelenting immigration that we have today—which is overwhelming our powers of assimilation.

Immigration without assimilation indeed is similar to foreign conquest, particularly it results in a large -scale exodus of natives. In case the NYT writers haven’t noticed, this is precisely what has happened in California, the state with largest number and percentage of immigrants. As that tide of legal and illegal immigrants moved in, massive numbers of native-born Californians have moved out.

Overcrowding, a problem directly attributable to immigration, is a reason many Californians give for leaving. Certainly, the stresses and aggravations of multiculturalism have also prompted them to depart. In many ways California is coming to resemble the Third World homelands of many of its immigrants.

If the NYT wants to examine questionable funding by foundations, it should take its sights off Colcom, and focus on the bankrolling of radical open-border groups by the Ford Foundation and other major philanthropic donors. Some years ago, AIC Foundation published a book, Importing Revolution, which exposed this funding. Some of the recipients were Latino supremacists and Marxists whose goals were to use mass immigration to destabilize American society.

But it’s no surprise that the NYT would do this kind of reporting. The newspaper is solidly on the side of the open borders agenda. One factor that probably helps ensure this allegiance is that Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, an illegal immigration advocate, owns a substantial share of NYT stock.

The influence wealthy Americans no doubt weighs on the NYT as well. It is unfortunate that many—if not most—of America’s financial elites see mass immigration as part of their class interest. And sadly, it seems they have little concern about how it impacts their fellow citizens of other classes. Cordelia May was a shining exception to this dreary rule. She cared about America and used her fortune to advance that concern. The NYT’s hit piece is a tribute to her character.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here