U.S. Genocidal Immigration Policy
Anglo Celt
By Joseph E. Fallon
The effect of U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when for the first time in
our nation’s history, Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has
been to perpetrate genocide against the nation’s European-American majority.
The term "genocide" is defined here by (1) international customary law, (2)
international treaty law, and (3) U.S. federal law.
Today, federal immigration policy is "deliberately inflicting on" Euro-
Americans "conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical
destruction in whole or in part," one of the definitions of genocide set forth
in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948.
Under international law, the following acts are punishable offenses:
"conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit
genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide." [Article II
also defines genocide as (b) "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members
of the group" and (d) "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group".] Legal remedies for the crime of genocide include "reparations" as
defined by international law that "must wipe out all the consequences of the
illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability,
have existed if that act had not been committed."
Euro-Americans Devastated by Third World Immigration
In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President
Clinton in June 1998 noted that "In a little more than 50 years, there will be
no majority race in the United States."
This unprecedented devastation of our nation’s majority population during
peace time is confirmed by our national Census. In 1960, the Census found
European- Americans were 89 percent of the nation’s population, compared with
81 percent in the 1790 Census, an eight-point increase that took more than
100 years. Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of "whites" had been
reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population -- an astonishing 14-point
drop in just 30 years. (Since the "non-Hispanic white" Census category
includes non- European whites from North Africa, the Middle East including
Israel, and the former Soviet Union -- who comprise a significant number of
immigrants -- the true number of white Americans of European descent is
likely far lower. Grassroots efforts to create a "European-American" category
in the 2000 Census have been thwarted by federal officials.)
This sharp demographic decline of Euro-Americans is the direct result of
immigration policies pursued by the U.S. government since 1965, resulting in
80 to 90 percent of all current legal immigrants coming from Third World
sites such as Mexico and other parts of Latin America, Asia, Africa and the
Caribbean. More than 98 percent of all illegal aliens amnestied -- that is,
granted legal status -- by the U.S. government also come from the Third
World. And nearly all of the estimated 300,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens who
settle each year in the U.S. are from the Third World.
U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the
lifespan of today’s children, European-Americans will be reduced to less than
50 percent of the U.S. population. In California, Euro-Americans will become
a demographic minority in California by the year 2000, in Texas by 2015, and
in Florida and New York shortly after 2016.
Despite grassroots efforts to stop present genocidal immigration policies, and
strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce -- or
halt-- immigration, the U.S. government actions are quickly reducing the Euro-
American population.
The Strong Case For "Genocide"
Perhaps the only viable course is to charge the U.S. government with the crime
of genocide, and seek reparations available under international and federal
laws. The suit would charge that since 1965, the immigration policy imposed
upon the European-American majority by the U.S. government has been both
illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons:
#1 This policy violates international customary law against genocide, binding
on the U.S. government since its adoption by the U.N. General Assembly on
December 9, 1948. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2,
Section 702, d, [c] which recognizes international customary law against
genocide prohibits "Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical,
racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part". While just one of the legal
definitions of "group" must be met under this law, European-Americans in fact
meet at least two. Racially, they are white; ethnically they are European.
Most are Christian; and as 89 percent of the U.S. population in 1960, they
defined the nation and shared a common origin.
#2 Congress has recognized international customary law against genocide in
U.S. Public Law 95-435. Enacted in 1978, Section 5 (b) states: "It is the
sense of the Congress that the Government of the United States should take
steps to disassociate itself from any foreign government which engages in the
crime of genocide." Since the Senate did not ratify the 1948 U.N. Genocide
Convention until 1988 and Uganda, the foreign country specified in this law
as guilty of genocide, also was not yet a signatory to the Convention, U.S.
Public Law 95- 435 can refer only to international customary law against
genocide. By enacting this public law, Congress has recognized both the
validity of international customary law against genocide and its
applicability to acts of the federal government.
#3 The U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 8 both recognizes international
customary law and confers on Congress the power "To define and punish piracies
and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of
nations."
#4 The U.S. Supreme Court has held international customary law binding on the
U.S. government since Paquete Habana in 1900 (175 U.S. at 708). In that
opinion, Justice Gray wrote: "...international law is part of our law, and
must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate
jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly
presented for their determination."
#5 In 1988, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention.
Article II, Section C defines genocide in part as "Deliberately inflicting on
the group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious) conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part".
Article IV of the Convention guarantees the right to take legal action
against the U.S. government and others for violating it, stipulating those
who commit genocide "shall be punished whether they are constitutionally
responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals."
#6 It, thereby, violates Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that
"all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States shall be the supreme law of the land."
#7 It violates U.S. Public Law 100-606 which, in accordance with Article V of
the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, made the provisions of that Convention
federal law. This statute amended Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States
Code by inserting "Chapter 50A -- Genocide". Section 1091 (a), (4), defines
genocide to include act(s) which "subjects the group (national, ethnical,
racial, or religious) to conditions of life that are intended to cause the
physical destruction of the group in whole or in part" in time of peace or
war.
#8 Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform
Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority
population. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that "the distribution of limited
quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the
United States." He added this "should set to rest any fear that this bill will
change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States."
Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of the 1965 immigration bill, stated at
the onset of Senate hearings that "the ethnic mix of this country will not be
upset" by this legislation.
Two Separate -- Unequal & Unjust -- U.S. Immigration Policies
Since 1965, the U.S. Congress, President and executive branch and judiciary
have actively imposed Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European-
Americans have always been the majority population. In stark contrast,
Congress has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the
racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories -- American Samoa, the Northern
Marianas, and the "Free Associated States" of the Marshall Islands, Federated
States of Micronesia, and Palau -- where non-European peoples form the
majority populations, for the express purpose of preserving their respective
ethnic majorities.
These distinct immigration policies -- one for the United States, another for
five U.S. territories -- show Congress is well aware of the direct
relationship between immigration and demography, and is destroying the
nation’s European- American racial and ethnic demographic majority
deliberately.
Lawsuit Charging Genocide
A lawsuit charging the U.S. government with inflicting genocide upon European-
Americans since 1965 via its immigration policies must be brought before the
Supreme Court of the United States and simultaneously before other recognized
penal tribunals throughout the world.
This lawsuit must make clear that international law against genocide is jus
cogens, that is, peremptory thereby nullifying any laws which violate its
principles, including all current U.S. immigration laws and policies. The suit
must seek "reparations" as defined by international law, specifically to
restore the nation’s racial and ethnic mix when the law took effect in 1948.
The objectives of this lawsuit are to have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that:
* U.S. immigration policy violates international and U.S. laws against
genocide
* U.S. immigration law, policies, regulations and procedures are therefore
null and void
* The U.S. government must re-establish the European-American population to
its demographic size, 90 percent, relative to the current population, as of
December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against
genocide took effect
* The U.S. government must adopt and enforce an immigration policy which
admits only ethnic Europeans until such time as the European-American
population again constitutes 90 percent of the total U.S. population. The
government should also actively repatriate non-citizen immigrants to expedite
that outcome.
European-Americans meet the legal requirements for standing required to file
this lawsuit. They have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (b)
this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct and (c) there is
a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial
decision in their favor.
Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American population is a
serious legal, moral and cultural issue, and because the pace of that
destruction is escalating, an immediate judicial stay on all related U.S.
immigration laws must be sought from the court. This stay would halt all
admissions into the U.S. of all non-European immigrants, refugees, asylees,
parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the Supreme Court
can rule on the lawsuit.
European-Americans satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since
(a) they can establish legal standing, (b) they are suffering severe injuries
from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and (c) they can show that the
benefits to the European-American population of a court-ordered stay on all
U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible
adverse impact such a stay could have on others.
U.S. Courts Rulings on International Law & Genocide
U.S. federal courts have already issued rulings based on international
customary law and international treaty law. In these cases, described below,
neither the plaintiffs nor defendants were U.S. citizens or legal U.S.
residents, nor did the alleged crimes occur in the United States or within its
jurisdiction.
Despite these legal decisions and the Supreme Court’s Paquete Habana decision
in 1900, current Supreme Court Justices could refuse to hear -- or hear and
reject -- a lawsuit charging the federal government’s immigration policy since
1965 has resulted in genocide against European-Americans.
To justify such a decision, however, the Justices would have to rule either
that (1) international law is no longer binding on the U.S. government (a
decision that would be condemned by environmentalists, and human rights,
immigrants’ rights and animal rights activists worldwide), or (2) that
European- Americans, alone, are not protected by those laws. In this unlikely
circumstance, Euro-Americans could file the suit in a country that is a
signatory to the U.N. Convention.
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules, publicity generated nationally
and internationally by pursuing such a lawsuit makes it a win-win proposition
for European-Americans.
Reparations From Foundations, Public Officials & Individuals
If the Supreme Court or other recognized tribunal rules in favor of European-
Americans’ charge of genocide, a follow-up lawsuit must be filed immediately
charging foundations, individuals, institutions, and organizations directly
and indirectly responsible -- through lobbying, legislation, and other
activities -- for U.S. immigration policy since 1965 with violating
international law against genocide.
Among these targets may be the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation,
Rockefeller Foundation, and Emma Lazarus Foundation/Open Society Institute,
who have provided grants to MALDEF, La Raza, and various pro-immigration,
open- borders advocacy and community groups; ZPG; numerous public officials;
the Democrat and Republican National Committees; and members of Congress.
Under both international and federal laws against genocide, the courts can
order these entities to pay both financial compensation and punitive damages
to European-Americans harmed by their activities. U.S. Public Law 100-606
also provides for imprisonment of those found guilty of the crime of
genocide.
Joseph E. Fallon is a published author and researcher on the topics of
immigration and American demography. He can be reached at jefa...@yahoo.com.
© 1998 Joseph E. Fallon
Permission is granted to those supporting this lawsuit to reproduce and
distribute this article in total, without modification or editing of any sort.
In all other uses of this, written permission to reproduce it in whole or in
part must be granted by the author.
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a
nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions
aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national
groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of
such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social
institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the
economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal
security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals
belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as
an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in
their individual capacity but as members of a national group." Rafael Lemkin,
creator of the term "genocide"
Legal Citations
In 1980, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (630 F. 2nd 876), the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by two Paraguayan citizens
against a former Paraguayan police official for the wrongful death by torture
in Paraguay of a member of the plaintiff’s family.
In 1985, in Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (623 F. Supp.
246), the District Court in the District of Columbia ruled in favor of a
lawsuit brought by Swedish citizens against the then Soviet Union for the 1945
seizure of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in Hungary, his subsequent
imprisonment, and possible death.
In 1988, in Forti v. Suarez-Mason (No. CD-87-2058-DLJ, slip op. At 7), upon
reconsideration, the District Court for the Northern District of California
ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by Argentine citizens against an Argentine
general for causing the "disappearance" in Argentina of a member of the
plaintiff’s family.
On April 12, 1995, in Xuncax v. Gramajo (Civil Action No. 91-11564-DPW), the
District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of eight
Guatemalan citizens in a lawsuit brought against Guatemalen General Hector
Alejandro Gramajo for torturing them in Guatemala during the 1980s. The
District Court ordered the General to pay the plaintiffs $42.5 million.
On October 13, 1995, in Kadic v. Kardzic (Docket Nos. 94-9035, -9069), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Bosnian Serb leader
Radovan Karadzic was subject to trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan
in a suit brought by Croat and Muslim Bosnian citizens for violating their
human rights in Bosnia. On June 17, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court, without
comment, allowed that ruling to stand.
------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo Celt - http://anglocelt.homepad.com
------------------------------------------------------------
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own