US politicians echo Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson’s report on demographic change and its role in Democratic Party’s power

A top Republican senator questions whether Democrats are using open borders to gain power

editor: REMIX NEWS
author: Remix News Staff

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson is questioning why the Democratic Party has been so adamant in its open borders push shortly after Tucker Carlson, the prime-time news anchor for Fox News, sent shockwaves throughout the United States’ media landscape after he said that the Democratic Party is trying to increase its political power by “replacing the current electorate” with migrants from the Third World.

Johnson, in an appearance on Fox News, stated, “This administration wants complete open borders and you have to ask yourself why. Is it really, they want to remake the demographics of America to ensure their—that they stay in power forever? Is that what’s happening here?”

Johnson was not the only Republican politician discussing the issue either, with Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry voicing similar concerns about demographic replacement at subcommittee meeting last week.

“For many Americans, what seems to be happening or what they believe right now is happening is, what appears to them is we’re replacing national-born American — native-born Americans to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation,” said Perry.

The subject of demographic replacement arose last week when Mark Steyn, a Canadian conservative author and political commentator, who had been filling in as the anchor for the show Tucker Carlson Tonight that evening, brought up the fact that illegal immigrants – unlike US citizens – are not required by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to provide any kind identification in order to board flights. 

Responding to the data put forward by Steyn, Carlson replied: “This about one of ten stories that I know you’ve covered where the government shows preference to people who’ve shown absolute contempt for our customs, our laws, and our system itself, and they’re being treated better than American citizens.”

“Now, I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement’ – if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people – more obedient voters from the Third World. But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it, that’s true.”

Carlson continued by saying: “This matters on a bunch of different levels, but on the most basic level it’s a voting rights question. In a democracy one equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. So every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter. I don’t understand why everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. No, this is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they’re importing a brand new electorate. Why should I sit back and take that?”

The Fox News anchor, whose show had been the most-watched news show on cable TV in the US throughout much of the Trump administration, went on to note that mass immigration negatively affects African Americans more than any group.

“I will never understand as long as I live why the so-called ‘Black leaders’ – Maxine Waters and people who claim to speak for Black people – are sitting by and allowing Black political power to disappear. In a generation, I really don’t think whoever replaces as Maxine Waters in Compton is going to be listened to by anybody because, as a numerical number, it just won’t matter. So, African Americans who by in large have been here for 400 years… They will have no say in how the country runs because as a mathematical question it just won’t matter. No one wants to say this out loud but it’s true, and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the people who live here are being disempowered by a new group brought in without their consent by a political party that only cares about political power.”

Immediately after Carlson made these statements, a wide swath of left-wing press outlets and far-left media pundits began calling for his removal from Fox, claiming that the television news host had publicly endorsed the so-called “White supremacist” “Great Replacement theory”.

The reaction to Carlson’s statements reflects a trend present over the years. Whenever the subject of population replacement is brought up by a member of the political right, that individual is immediately subjected to an onslaught of slanderous ad hominem attacks, and they are routinely accused of being racists, anti-Semites, White supremacists, and other disparaging and highly-emotionally charged names.

Conversely, however, when the political left states — sometimes in a boastful manner — that the populations of North American and Europe are in fact being replaced, the leftist mainstream press is silent or even running their own stories on the topic.

For example, in October 2018, a New York Times columnist by the name of Michelle Goldberg openly boasted about population replacement in a piece titled “We Can Replace Them”.

In the Los Angeles Times, an article entitled “California’s change demographics will further doom the Republicans” outlined how demographic replacement in the state had led to a complete reversal of Republican power in the state and how immigration would only accelerate that trend. 

Last month, the influential French philosopher Michel Onfray spelled this out how this situation was also developing in France in an interview for the news site Front Populaire.

“If someone on the left says ‘the Great Replacement, that is us’, the response is ‘very good’, but if someone on the right like Renuad Camus says there is a ‘Great Replacement’, they immediately cry ‘fascism’,” Onfray said.

“In the United States, which tracks ethnicity, mass immigration combined with falling birth rates and increasing deaths of the White population have led to a rapid shift in the demographic picture in the country. Whites, who made up nearly 90 percent of the population in 1960, now make up under 60 percent of the population. There are now predictions that Whites will become a minority as early as this decade if immigration trends do not reverse, according to the Brookings Institute.

As Remix News has previously reported, the “Great Replacement” is a term coined by the French writer Renaud Camus in his 2010 book ‘The Great Replacement’, where he proposes the idea that the indigenous White French people are being demographically replaced by non-Europeans. Camus is not the only European author to propose such an idea. Other proponents of the idea that Europeans are being replaced in their homelands include French thinkers Eric Zemmour, who wrote ‘The French Suicide’, and Michel Houllebcq, who wrote ‘Submission’. 

One of the most powerful voices calling for the firing of Tucker Carlson was the Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – a group whose mission claims to “stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all”.

In a letter sent to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on Friday, the head of the ADL claimed that Carlson’s “rhetoric was not just a dog whistle to racists – it was a bullhorn.”

Fox News, however, has stood behind Carlson and his comments, which they say were not racist in any way.

On Monday, the Fox News host doubled down on his evening show, delving deeper in subjects which included the Democratic Party’s political ambitions, voter replacement, demographic change, and historical examples which he says back up his claims that mass immigration serves only to increase the power of the left:

“Demographic change is the key to the Democratic Party’s political ambitions. Mass immigration increases the power of the Democratic Party – period. That’s the reason Democrats support it. It’s the only reason. If 200,000 immigrants from Poland showed up at our southern border tomorrow, Kamala Harris wouldn’t promise them healthcare. Why? Poles tend to vote republican. That’s the difference. Democrats would deport those migrants immediately. No more hand ringing about how we’re a nation of immigration. Hundreds of thousands of likely Republicans massing in Tijuana – that would qualify as a national crisis. We would have a border wall by Wednesday.

For Democrats the point of immigration isn’t to show compassion to refugees, much less to improve our country. It’s definitely not about racial justice. Mass immigration hurts African Americans maybe more than anyone else.  Immigration is a means to electoral advantage. It is about power.

More democratic voters means more power for Democratic politicians. That’s the signature lesson of the state of California. Between 1948 and 1992 the state of California voted for exactly one Democratic president – one. Alone among America’s big population centers, in vivid contrast to Chicago and New York, California was reliably, proudly Republican. For eight years, no less a figure than Ronald Reagan ran the state. California had the country’s best schools, the best infrastructure, the best economy – not to mention the prettiest natural environment on the planet. California was a model for the world.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan, its former governor, became president of the US. In retrospect, it never got any better for California. Midway through his second term, Reagan signed something called the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Though we didn’t likely realize it at the time, that made future Ronald Reagans impossible The Immigration Reform and Control brought about an amnesty and a path to citizen for nearly 3 million foreign nationals living in the US illegally. The next year, by executive order, Reagan added to that number. He halted the deportation of another 100,000 illegal minors – dreamers of his day.

The rest of the world watched carefully as this happened. Would-be migrants everywhere concluded that there was no real penalty for breaking America’s laws. In fact, there was a reward. Reagan also signed the law that required hospitals to provide free medical care regardless of immigration status. The Supreme Court had already guaranteed free education to anyone without a visa. So, free hospitals, free schools — amnesty if you get caught. Why wouldn’t the rest of the world come? They soon did.

If you’re ever bored go back and read the coverage of the 1986 amnesty bill when it passed. Everyone at the time – both parties and the media – assured Americans that the new law would control our border. It was called the Immigration Control Act after all. The opposite happened. Huge new waves of migrants arrived immediately – many of them illegal. California was transformed virtually overnight. It became a Democratic state. In 1988, George H. W. Bush narrowly won California in the presidential election. No Republican has ever won that state since. No Republican will ever will win in California – not in our lifetimes.

There are now about twice as many registered Democrats in California as there are Republicans. How’d that happen? There’s not much debate about it. The counties in California with the highest percentage of Republicans are not coincidentally those with the lowest percentage of immigrants, and vice versa. California changed because the population change.

An analysis, for example, of the 2012 presidential election showed that if you were actually from there – if you lived in the state of California in 1980 that you probably still voted republican – your views hadn’t really changed. But as your state swelled with foreign voters, your views became irrelevant. Your political power – the power to control your own life – disappeared with the arrival of new people who diluted your vote. And that was the whole point.

That’s not democracy – it’s cheating.”

The California-born Fox News anchor then addressed his detractors, highlighting the Anti-Defamation League’s hypocritical support for “replacement theory” when it comes to Israel.

Carlson underlined the guide for pro-Israel activists on the ADL’s website which argues that the idea of “bio-nationalism” in Israel “is unworkable given current realities and historic animosities”, and amounts to “nothing less than an indirect attempt to bring about an end to the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.”

“With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a bi-national state, thus likely ending any semblance of the equal representation and protections,” the ADL wrote. “In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable.”

“It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel to voluntary subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.”


.

tend: 1652794415.5768