Discover more from Robert Stark's Newsletter
The case for Enclave-based Immigration over Nationalism
Rethinking immigration in the context of Post-Americanism
The recent migrant surge is historically unprecedented, as far as the sheer numbers of migrants the Biden admin has welcomed. This encouragement of mass migration and total negligence of border control, lends some credence to a sinister agenda to permanently alter America’s demographic composition for political gain. While Replacement Theory is legit, it is not necessarily some secretive conspiracy but rather an assortment of various special interests, including partisan Democrats, corporations seeking to depress wages, and various ideologically motivated NGOs.
Besides demographic replacement, mass immigration dilutes native-born American political clout, increases income inequality, and strains environmental resources. Regardless, immigration restriction now seems futile, other than brining attention to the crisis. For instance, Trump only modestly slowed down immigration, while simoulstenely radicalizing the opposition for open borders. While Texas Governor, Greg Abbot’s, bussing of migrants to liberal cities immensely harms the quality of life for these cities’ residents, it is not stemming the overall demographic tide, rather it amounts to “owning the libs.”
The problem is not so much the logistics of controlling immigration, as a well-defined nation with the political will can control its borders. Rather it is because America is an inward facing multi-ethnic empire or economic zone comparable to the EU, made up of many de-facto nations, defined by cultural and ethnic demographic blocks. Besides ethnic balkanization, Red vs. Blue regions are beginning to function as separate nations, viewing each other as foreigners rather than fellow Americans. Thus immigration control is basically defending the periphery of the Empire. The more America is transformed demographically, the less significance the border has. For instance, Houston, Texas is now much less European demographically than parts of Mexico.
The Nationalist Right, who has little to no institutional power, naïvely look to border control, as the main way to exert sovereignty. The three main forms of sovereignty are nation states/borders, demographic blocks (eg. enclaves), and property ownership/rights. State-based nationalism has a role in protecting the other two, but can be a distraction, especially considering that the regime is hostile and has neglected all its duties to sovereignty and American citizens. Even E-Verify proposals to crackdown on illegal immigration, could grant the State more power to persecute political dissidents, while still displacing American workers via legalized immigration.
Thus these other forms of sovereignty need to be made a priority, because people can practically exert some degree of control or influence over them. Overall it is important to set down boundaries or claim a sense of tribal ownership over space, rather than looking to corrupt politicians and institutions to do so. However, there is a case that surrendering on immigration means that property rights and local control are next in line, such as communities being forced to accept migrants. Not to mention that migration has long been used as an Imperial tactic of divide and conquer, from the British Empire to the Soviet Union.
Right-libertarian blogger, Richard Hanania, proposes a compromise, of liberalized immigration in exchange for freedom of association. This fits in with anarcho-capitalists, like Walter Block, who are for open immigration but also ok with voluntary segregation. An interesting compromise might be to allow for White enclaves, as well as sanctuary cities and special zones that allow for open immigration. There are proposals for geographic specific visas, such as granting States power to admit immigrants, settling immigrants in areas that are depopulated or economically devastated, or a more nefarious agenda to use migrants to orchestrate demographic change in rural White regions.
Top down implemented, geographic specific visas would be terrible, rather immigration should be controlled on a decentralized basis. For instance the blogger, Apex, proposes that a “Very simple way to solve immigration crisis Every town votes: 1. Do you want migrants in your town? 2. If so, how many? 3. Does your town have the resources to feed and house that many? You cannot force immigrants on others. Skin in the game. Solves the issue overnight.” Sovereignty would be localized and immigration policy would be democratized. Ideally the admission of immigrants would be decided upon by either local governments or citizens councils. The question is whether this model would require strict residency restrictions or an internal passport system to work. Regardless, this would require a radical political and legal/constitutional paradigm shift, especially if done the right way.
Robert Stark's Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It is interesting to speculate how communities would respond to enclave-based immigration, particularly wealthy White communities, as they would be responsible for providing housing and education for immigrants in their community. Thus elites would no longer be able to virtue signal. Would wealthy White communities take in a handful of refugees to virtue signal, welcome wealthy Chinese and Indian tech immigrants, favor White immigrants, or just go full NIMBY and say no immigrants period? Regardless, this model could increase diversity while also preventing displacement, an asymmetrical or anti-liberal multiculturalism.
While enclavism based immigration could be framed as multiculturalism, White enclaves, especially having control over immigration, is an anathema to the left, as Apartheid, and core tenets of Civil Rights. Perhaps the left and establishment would oppose enclave-based immigration even more than MAGA and immigration restriction. It is important to emphasize that Civil Rights legislation encompassed both liberalizing immigration and restricting freedom of association. A far cry from the Old Democratic Party that was a coalition of urban immigrant enclaves and Southern segregationists, the modern Democratic Party is for both mass immigration and forced integration and racial equity under centralized institutions, which will require authoritarian measures to maintain (eg. an American Orania would be ruthlessly crushed by State force). While radical integrationists appear leftists, their agenda fits in with coerced assimilation to rob all of their inborn tribal identities, both Whites and immigrants, to maintain the Empire.
However, there are potential downsides to enclavism, if immigration is not slowed down. An America that has both enclavism and open immigration, has the potential to become like Arab Gulf States that are extremely unequal and stratified, with a large migrant class that is exploited and can never become citizens. A scenario of Matt Yglesias’, One Billion Americans, but with enclavism would probably end up like South Asia. Even a scenario where there are exclusive, desirable, White enclaves next to hyper-dense zones that are open to immigration, coexisting in the same metro, is bound to create some resentment and perhaps conflict, especially if there is extreme income inequality. Unless citizenship is restricted, like in the Gulf States, immigrants will form political blocks that will demand either redistribution of wealth from Whites or access to White space. An enclave or demographic block can grow in numbers by recruiting more immigrants, and then assert demands upon neighboring enclaves. It is not just migrant underclasses, but many upwardly mobile immigrants feel entitled to live in single family home White suburbs. Even now, there is a big push on the left to forcibly integrate White suburbs. Overall, the question is whether closeknit ethnocentric communities are a strong enough buffer to mass demographic change, even without forced integration.
Ideally America would be fractured into many de-facto micronations that do fiercely guard their sovereignty. The best example of this are Switzerland’s Cantons, which have local control over immigration. Practically a form of pan-enclavism or ethnopluralism. In contrast with Switzerland’s strict immigration controls, the UK is very pro-immigration yet epitomizes the centralized Liberal Nation State model. Overall, a decentralized enclave model has potential for both lower or increased immigration.
The current migrant wave is practically The Camp of the Saints, and is not limited to Latin America, but basically the entire World; Haiti, East, South and Central Asia, Russia, the Middle East, and Africa. Currently there is a repeat of the border surge that occurred right before the end of Title 42 in May. This is taking into account that the Biden admin has managed to hide much of the dramatic impact, by legalizing migration via the CBP app, bussing migrants in directly from Latin American nations. One parole program is for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, and the other allows for any migrant to apply for asylum at the border.
Counting all US in-migration annually, half a million migrants are admitted via the CBP app, a new parole program will admit another half a million Venezuelans, another new program will allow 200k immigrants to fly directly to American cities to claim asylum, existing legal immigration is about 1 million, and there are about 2 million illegal border crossings. That adds up to over 4 million migrants annually, breaking all past records for border crossings and immigration. It would not be farfetched for 8 million migrants to arrive in 2024. The migrant crisis will only accelerate due to economic crisis and food shortages in the Global South, and the impacts of chain migration. Basically a trial run for open borders, considering that the numbers who want to immigrate globally are about 900 million. The date when Whites become a minority in America could easily move up from 2045 to 2035.
Source: Gallup Polling
The idea of Trump or DeSantis getting elected, and then enacting mass deportations of illegals and shutting down the border, is a massive cope. Republicans know that immigration is a political weapon against them. However, they would rather engage in performative gestures, and conspiracy theories about stolen elections than admit that the traditional American Nation is gone. Conservatism Inc. is a grift to keep Heritage Americans feeling outraged, politically engaged, and hopeful that they have a fighting chance. This is so they keep donating and voting Republican. Conservatives have accepted defeat on immigration/demographics and would rather focus on crime, or culture war issues like wokeness and LGBTQ. Not to mention that Republican donors benefit from cheap migrant labor. Conservative border hawks will point out the humanitarian crisis, such as migrant deaths and human trafficking, and are absolutely correct that Biden is morally culpable for that. However, if anything, pointing out the humanitarian crisis is used to further justify more safe legal pathways for migrants rather than shutting down the border.
While Europe receiving one million migrants in 2015, upended politics with a nationalist populist backlash, America receiving about 6 million migrants since Biden took office, barely even impacted the midterms. Even if the migrant surge, combined with a bad economy, costs Biden re-election, Democrats are hedging on a long-term demographic and institutional strategy, even taking into account a modest shift in working class non-Whites to the GOP. In contrast with Europe, which is more rooted, homogenous, densely populated, with smaller nations, America has been able to absorb large numbers of immigrants, in part, because of its rootlessness, which obviously has major downsides. America’s vastness means that Americans are fairly tolerant of diversity, but under the condition that they have some space, and are not forced to live in close proximity to outgroups.
The question is whether this migrant crisis will lead to an endless stream of more migration or cause a backlash against mass immigration, especially when automation really kicks in. While both scenarios are plausible, the desires of the ruling class matter much more than those of the American people. Regardless, the migrant crisis, on top of political polarization and civil strife, the rise in racial identity politics, as well as impending economic doom, will likely have an extremely accelerationist impact. The migrant surge further hastens America’s balkanization and acts as a shock that will hopefully put an end to copes about taking back America. The migrant crisis also delegitimizes the soft power of the US Empire/Regime, shattering all illusions of America as either a Democracy or Republic.
Replacement is not just about immigration or the date when Whites become a minority, but also the erasure of White identity, culture, and history. Obsessing about the timeframe for when Whites become a minority is counterintuitive. What matters is that Whites, and basically all demographic groups for that matter, preserve some continuity of being able to pass down a genetic and cultural lineage to their descendants, have a sense of security and prosperity, as far as access to jobs and housing, and protections against being targeted by hostile institutions. While this relates to nationalism, it should not be constrained by nationalism, and matters even more in a multi-ethnic nation. There is a strong case that Whites would be better off pursuing identity politics under multiculturalism than desperately trying to maintain colorblind civic nationalism. Whites must resist mass homogenization and institutional control rather than obsess over whether immigrants assimilate or not.
What I am advocating for is basically national multiculturalism but with local homogeneity, re-establishing the “us-ness” at a local level. If multiculturalism is inevitable then trying to hold together a diverse society with a mass mono-culture and centralized institutions is insane. The current situation is the worst of both worlds, since we basically have a policy of multiculturalism for non-Whites but compulsory universalism for White Americans, who are expected to hold the empire together, rather than pursue their own interests. White Americans are in a state of limbo, where the old America is dead, yet the idea of acting as a diaspora is alien. I want to be optimistic, but a plausible scenario is where there is continued mass demographic change, a top-down centralized managerial power structure, widespread anti-White discrimination and political persecution, White economic downward mobility, scapegoating of Whites for income inequality, yet where Whites remain hyper-individualistic, being at a tremendous disadvantage and politically disenfranchised. While there is little hope in reforming the system towards radical decentralization, one White Pill is that the shock from rapid demographic change and economic collapse will force Whites to become tribal and rebuild social capital to survive. A more cutthroat society will make enclaves, tribes, and patronage networks a necessity.
Source: @leadpacer on Twitter
Immigration restriction, as well as MAGA Nationalism to take back America, which has implicitly White undertones, has become a cope to avoid accepting the Post-American reality. Stemming the tide of immigration serves a purpose to bide time, but is not a viable long-term solution. Immigration restriction functions as a kind of managed decline, and unlike enclavism, offers nothing exiting or utopian to look forward to in the future, and is a distraction from White Americans acting as a diaspora. I am not calling for throwing in the towel on immigration but rather for an honest assessment of immigration in the context of post-Americanism.