Goodbye to the prosperous country founded by overwhelmingly Protestant colonists in the 18th century. Hello to the third-world multicultural mélange with a distinctly Mexican accent, appalling cultural norms, and a clearly leftist political orientation. Such is the vision of the
States given by no-holds-barred pundit Ann
Coulter in her latest book, Adios, : The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a
Third World Hellhole. America
Coulter’s subtitle summarizes her basic thesis—that America’s immigration policies since the decisive Edward Kennedy bill in 1965 have altered our demographic makeup so radically that the nation will be unalterably degraded if immediate changes aren’t made to our legal and illegal immigration practices. Kennedy’s legislation, despite passionate assurances to the contrary, (Coulter: “If you like your country’s ethnic composition, you can keep it.”) soon became the vehicle for fundamentally transforming
immigrant population from largely European to overwhelmingly Third
World in origin.
Indeed, Coulter observes in her heavily annotated work that about 50 million Mexicans, more than a quarter of that nation’s population, has already migrated, either legally and illegally, to America—a figure derived by employing data other than census forms that folks unlawfully in the country clearly don’t complete at the postulated 90% rate. Overall, thanks to family reunification policies and notoriously lax enforcement of sanctuary laws, “since 1970, nearly 90 percent of all legal immigrants have been from the
Accordingly, the country now accepts “more immigrants from Nigeria
than we do from Britain”
and “in just a few decades, Minnesota
has gone from being 99 percent German, Dutch, Finnish, Danish, and Polish to 20
percent African immigrant—including at least one hundred thousand Somalis.”
The devastating consequences of accepting millions of immigrants from cultural backwaters are evident in crime statistics—stats that Coulter says are incredibly hard to secure since it’s now deemed racist to ask how many incarcerated folks are foreign born. Despite the virtual blackout on such data, it’s clear that immigrants (legal and illegal) constitute a disproportionate percentage of the nation’s prison population. “The
government admits that at least 351,000 criminal immigrants were incarcerated
in the United States
as of 2011.” The “at least” in that
sentence should be emphasized in view of the importance government officials place
on “not” tracking such politically explosive information.
Many of these criminals, Coulter observes with biting irony, are committing crimes that Americans just won’t do. Adios America is replete with atrocities that most news outlets won’t specifically attribute to immigrants. Instead a “man” or “residents” are to blame for gruesome crimes—child molestations, gang rapes, sex-trafficking, et cetera. Consider, for example, a 1998 New York Times story in which the journalist employs a remarkable number of misleading terms in his report on a vicious gang-rape in Fresno, California (“working class city…men and boys…24-year-old man…teen-ager…five adults…seven juveniles) all the while avoiding specifically identifying both the perpetrators and victims of these crimes as Hmong immigrants. To further confuse readers, the reporter throws into his story an inapt comparison to a decade-old fraternity sexual assault of a mentally disabled girl in
and an irrelevant reference to a white supremacist gang in Fresno.
Coulter adds that “over the next year, about three dozen Hmong men were
indicted for a series of gang rapes and forced prostitution of young girls in
the Fresno area.”
The truth that PC journalists are loath to admit is that
World attitudes toward women are generally abysmal when compared
with the United States.
Thus, the fact that young Hispanic girls in the U.S. are seven times more
likely than their white counterparts to give birth between the ages of ten and
fourteen is perfectly consistent with Mexican law where “in thirty-one of
thirty-two states… the age of consent for sex is twelve.” The lone exception is
where the legal age is fourteen. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that
Hispanics have the highest unmarried birthrate in the Mexico State U.S.,
“even higher than American blacks,” a fact that “accounts for a raft of social
problems…that will never be identified as the consequence of mass immigration.”
It’s also important to note that in the Third World a
child’s (or even a woman’s) “consent” is a very malleable concept.
For Coulter one of the most egregious aspects of American immigration jurisprudence is the notion that any baby born in
regardless of the mother’s legal status, automatically becomes an American
citizen. That baby then becomes an “anchor” used to bring the rest of the
family to America.
Coulter argues that this reading of the Fourteenth Amendment was “cooked up by
Justice William Brennan in 1982” and has given rise to a flood of planned
births in the U.S.
by illegal immigrants. In ,
for example, “70 percent of the 2,300 babies born” in 2003 at that city’s “ Stockton, California San
Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies.”
Coulter adds to that statistic one more fact: “By 2013, Stockton
The policy of bestowing American citizenship on the progeny of individuals who purposely break
immigration laws is so crazy that even Nevada Senator Harry Reid blasted it in
1993: “If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about
offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that,
right?” But soon afterward, Coulter notes, “Democrats discovered that parents
of anchor babies were voting for them! Suddenly Senator Reid decided it wasn’t
insane to give citizenship to children born to illegals…. To the contrary, it
was racist not to do so.”
According to Coulter, another journalistic con-job foisted on the American people involves polls about illegal immigration. These surveys typically require respondents to choose between two unreal alternatives: 1) rounding up and deporting all illegal immigrants or 2) granting these same folks a “pathway to citizenship” based on a long list of conditions—paying fines and back taxes, learning English, taking citizenship classes, no access to welfare, et cetera. The first alternative omits the option of self-deportation, a choice that would become much more likely if an E-verify system that checks an employee’s social security card were made mandatory for most employers. The second alternative involves preconditions that are never actually imposed on illegal immigrants. Another possible response omitted from most polls would be letting illegal immigrants remain “in the shadows”—an option most illegals obviously favor over returning to places like
Coulter’s book also sheds light on the role played by one of the world’s richest men in
immigration debate. That man, Carlos Slim Helu, is a Mexican citizen “whose
fortune depends on tens of millions of Mexicans living in the United
States, preferably illegally” and sending
billions of dollars back to relatives in Mexico.
Coulter’s expose focuses primarily on the fact that in 2008 this shady financier
“saved the New York Times from bankruptcy.” Following Slim’s quarter-billion
dollar loan, the Times became increasingly strident on the issue of illegal immigration.
In pre-bailout 2004, for example, a Times
article described the nation’s southern border as under siege.” Ten years
later, when Latin Americans were more egregiously “pouring across the border,
the Times indignantly demanded that
Obama ‘go big’ on immigration and give ‘millions of immigrants permission to
stay.’ What a difference,” Coulter observes, “one thieving Mexican billionaire
While accepting millions of Third World immigrants is clearly, on Coulter’s evidence, bad for America, “it’s fantastic for Democrats” as well as for businesses that profit from this vast source of low-wage labor. Wealthy folks seeking cheap maids and nannies also have an interest in maintaining a ready supply of uneducated domestic workers who can be paid off the books and further supported by taxpayers. Incredibly, Coulter informs us that until 1970 immigrants to
actually “made more money, bought more houses, and were more educated” than
native-born Americans. That was before Edward Kennedy’s lasting gift to the
Democrat Party fully opened the Third World spigot.
Coulter’s advice to
and to largely oblivious GOP Presidential contenders is to “just shut it down.
No more family reunification, no more scam marriages, no more refugees, no more
phony asylum cases (which is all of them), and no more ‘high-tech workers’
providing slave labor to Microsoft.” A fence on the southern border, an end to
“anchor baby” status, and “a timeout on endless immigration from the Third
World” are required if America
is itself to avoid becoming “a Third World republic that
will never elect another Republican—in other words, ‘ California.’”
Adios America is full of anecdotes and will doubtless be dismissed as merely anecdotal by folks who profit from our current immigration system or who mindlessly repeat the bogus mantra, “Diversity is our strength.” (Consider the effects of “diversity” in the former
the Middle East, and Rwanda.)
In truth, however, Coulter’s book contains a raft of important statistics as
well as a number of compelling arguments that should give pause to anyone
willing to scrutinize the effects of America’s
legal and illegal immigration policies over the last five decades.