Connect with us


Flashback: Charlie Kirk Has Been Shilling for Mass Migration for YEARS



A source close to BLP brought attention to Charlie Kirk’s previous book Time for a Turning Point, which he co-authored with Brent Hamachek. The book was released in 2016 and outlines Kirk’s vision for free markets and limited government.

Apart from the generic Boomer conservative talking points about limited government that the book covered, it did approach the topic of immigration. However, Kirk’s vision for immigration did not align with any principle that America First advocates push for.

In fact, a significant portion of his immigration section consists of a plan to install a two-year probationary period which would allow an unspecified number of immigrant workers to live in America with a guaranteed permanent status provided that they commit no crimes. In one paragraph, Kirk gushed over the economic potential that his migration scheme could bring about and talked about how an “invisible hand” would guide immigrants under this hypothetical scheme.

Trending: Ex-Soviet Leader Gorbachev: US Capitol Riot “Planned in Advance, And It Is Clear by Whom”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Kirk has previously talked about how America has the “capacity” to bring in more immigrants. In the same Culture War speech, he even said that America should have an unlimited amount of “genius visas” and “merit visas” that could potentially accommodate 30-40 million immigrants that match the supposed skill criteria.

Before embracing any of Kirk’s ideas we have to ask several questions.

What does he have to say about giving citizenship to migrants?

If Kirk is so adamant about “small government”, he should start looking at macrotrends, specifically voting patterns and immigrant voter views on fundamental political questions such as the role of government in society and the right to bear arms. On both issues, Pew Research found Hispanics to be well to the Left of the American populace. Even Hispanic Republicans were to the Left of the average Republicans on key principles of the Historic American Nation. Continuing the mass migration policies of the last 50 years will only guarantee that the U.S. becomes more statist and hostile to basic civil liberties.

Kirk, like a lot of conservatives and economically reductionist right-wingers, views immigration through an exclusively economic lens. He doesn’t take into consideration the cultural and political impact of mass migration. Researchers like Jason Richwine have demonstrated that Third World migration patterns come with negative multigenerational effects on crime, economic performance, and capacity to assimilate. It’s not enough to look at just the first wave of migrants. Their progeny’s performance as both economic and social actors demonstrate many of the second and third orders effects that are capable of undermining the nation. The impact of immigration policy must take into consideration the impact that is seen decades, if not centuries further down the line.

Is skill-based migration all that it’s cracked out to be?

Talking about skilled workers also misses the point. Skill-based migration systems attract an overclass from certain geopolitical rivals such as China, who could easily form Fifth Columns within the U.S. and undermine the country internally through corporate espionage and university infiltration. Immigration is multi-faceted and cannot just be viewed from an economic perspective.

Unfortunately, our short-term oriented society does not value such type of thinking. It looks for quick fixes or boosts to the GDP. The undeniable fact is that immigration has historically come in waves with certain pauses — legislative or natural — taking place in between. With the passage of the radical 1965 Immigration Act and subsequent amnesties, the U.S. is long overdue for an immigration moratorium.

What Kirk put forward is a typical constructive Republican alternative proposal (C.RA.P), which is positioned as a “rational” alternative to otherwise radical leftist proposals. However, such a migration scheme only compounds the problems of mass migration albeit in a unique way.Right now, the only discussion on immigration policy should be centered on efforts to promote zero net migration to the U.S. Any other policy that does not reduce migration only adds to the problem.

Pressure from the Groypers, an upstart America First faction, made Charlie Kirk reverse course from previous comments where he stated he would like to “staple green cards” to diplomas. That said, we cannot expect true immigration reform coming from the likes of Kirk.

After all, this is a person who opposed Trump during the primaries (when Trump was at his most nationalist on immigration policy) according to BLP reports. Now, he’s clearly jumping on the Trump bandwagon and exploiting the Trumpist aspect of the Trump movement to position his organization (TPUSA) as the leading voice of the MAGA movement, while ignoring the America First principle of limiting mass migration that got Trump elected.

Young America First advocates will have to look elsewhere for student leaders who want to actually restrict migration and restore some sanity to America’s immigration system. Kirk’s vision only serves the donor class who love cheap labor. It also perpetuates mass migration diversity tropes that academic institutions, business, and bureaucracies have been promoting during the last few decades.


Flashback: Ann Coulter Warns Steve Bannon about Donald Trump’s Hires During 2016

Coulter tells it like it is.



Earlier this week, former White House adviser Steve Bannon reached out to President Donald Trump, in an apparent move to reconcile with the president. Bannon was one of the more renowned advisors in the Trump administration who received a lot of attention for his unconventional views. The former White House adviser is likely looking for Trump to pardon him for several federal criminal charges that he is currently facing.

Bannon was one of the strongest contrarian voices on the right who questioned traditional conservative dogma on free trade and immigration. His rise to prominence represented a raw, populist anger that was building within the Republican Party base. Bannon ended up leaving the Trump administration after the infamous Charlottesville rally. This left a massive void for populist voices within the Trump brain trust, which was never adequately filled with populist figures.

Most of the strong populist voices during the Trump era came from the outside. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has been one of the leading figures trying to steer populist discourse in America.Although a harsh critic, Coulter did her best to hold President Trump accountable and watch his every move, especially personnel decisions that did not align with his America first vision. To the average pro-Trump individual, Coulter’s criticism may come off as abrasive, but it was and still is  necessary to have a viable nationalist movement.

As a reminder to her followers about how she knew that there were subversive elements in the Trump administration who wanted to gut the president’s America First agenda and pursue more traditional Republican policies, she tweeted about email correspondence she had with Bannon dating back to December 2, 2016. In light of the rapprochement between Bannon and Trump, Coulter called attention to how she warned the former White House adviser about some of the latter’s questionable staffing decisions during the early stages of his presidency.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Coulter tweeted, “No, actually, I knew Trump was betraying us pretty early on – and that it would cost him re-election. My December 2, 2016 email to Steve Bannon:”

In an email sent on December 2, 2016 with a subject line titled “ghost of christmas future”, Coulter warned then-White House adviser Bannon about some of Trump’s hiring decisions.

She first noted that “the fact that Trump is even CONSIDERING rep. Mccaul (rubio in the house) for homeland — and is NOT considering kobach— tells me we’re not getting any major deportations, no removal of refugees, no e-verify, no end to end anchor babies… and trump will be dead.

also, “mad dog” isn’t going to build a wall.”

She was referring to Texas Congressman Michael McCaul, a known mass migration booster and a potential nominee for the head of the Department of Homeland Security. United States Marine Corps General James Matthis would be Trump’s first Secretary of Defense, who ended up turning out to be a Deep State hack. On the other hand, Kris Kobach is a nationally recognized immigration hawk, who gained fame for implementing some of the stiffest voter ID standards in the nation during his time as Secretary of State.

The Trump administration was successful in implementing several administrative changes that limited immigration and also did not get involved in any nation-building engagements like previous administrations.

Nevertheless, Coulter’s incisive suggestions still have use for future Republican administrations. The new GOP should follow Coulter’s pro-migration restriction suggestions if it wants to not only remain politically relevant, but also protect the integrity of America’s political system.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!