One of two co-authors on the Heritage Foundations big research paper that Rubio’s immigration bill will cost nearly $7 trillion dollars is a white supremacist/nationalist advocate and wrote a thesis that immigrants have lower IQs than the white native population.
Should this about do it for the non-white US population as they learn how tight and related the Heritage Foundation is to the Republican Party and the white dominated libertarian and conservative movement?
I imagine Americans and new immigrants of Latino and Hispanic descent have more than enough equal IQ to see clearly what Republicans and their ‘think tanks’ are all about.
Conservative Hispanic outreach should be breathing its last dying breath about now. Thank you Heritage and Jim DeMint.. the new used car clunker salesman who now leads the Heritage Foundation.
What does this have to do with libertarians? Heritage is a conservative think tank, not a libertarian one. Libertarians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration.
Do you have any evidence that this person is a white supremacist/nationalist? It might have been helpful to link to this evidence so we can evaluate where he is coming from instead of taking your word for it.
Calling the author names is not the same as discrediting a paper. If you had substantive problems with the paper, could you enlighten us as to what they are?
The problem with the paper is that it is projecting budgetary numbers out 50 years into the future, which is nonsensical. Maybe they can do that in China, but it’s meaningless in the US.
I don’t think it’s that simple. He could just be bad at science; and falling victim to garbage-in, garbage-out, arguing for the logical conclusion suggested by a faulty premise. Also, according to the article, he recommended allowing in individual Hispanics who are sufficiently intelligent:
White Supremacist thought I’ve encountered is based on racial purity, and would reject accepting any non-whites as equals.
And, naturally, white nationalism requires advocating for a nation of only whites.
I don’t know about that, when Rand Paul calls himself that I understand what he means: small government conservative. Basically, strict interpretation of the Constitutional powers of Congress, small military and fairly isolationist foreign policy, and opposition to individual liberties not granted by the Constitution, like marriage equality or abortion.
Basically, socially conservative and fiscally conservative, with a small-government bent. At least, that’s my understanding.
That could be. I’m not saying he’s not a white supremacist or a white nationalist, I’m saying that this one paper isn’t sufficient evidence on its own to make that judgement. If you have to assume he doesn’t mean what he’s advocating, it makes the conclusion pretty shaky.
No, sir. “White Nationalist” is simply the label that American white racists/supremacists/separatists currently prefer for themselves (thereby appropriating, or trying to, the radical-cachet of “Black Nationalists” etc.). It implies nothing that specific about their agenda. Of course most of them would like an all-white America, but you needn’t have that as your principal practical goal before you qualify for the club. Some, no doubt, would prefer having nonwhites kept around – in servile capacity.
Ok, true, a nationalist doesn’t have to be separatist.
To be a white nationalist means holding a belief in a national identity based on the white race. And I don’t see support for a racial national identity in the OP’s article.
