“All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”

-Bill Clinton, 1995 State of the Union address


When bestselling author and immigrant, Dinesh D'Souza, went on the "Kelly File" on The Fox News Channel to talk about how Obama's lax immigration policy had caused an influx of illegal immigration over the US/Mexico border, the leftist lost their collective hive mind.

"We must silence this man!" they must have thought to themselves.

As we saw in the first chapter of this book, any black person who breaks the leftist norm is automatically labeled an "Uncle Tom." Since D'Souza isn't black, they couldn't apply this label, so they did the next best thing. They labeled him a "self-hating immigrant."

David Weigel, of the Washington Post, on the left-leaning website Slate, attacked the New York Times for calling D'Souza a scholar. They point out all he did was graduate Phi Beta Kappa from an Ivy League school, work for some of the country’s most respected think tanks, write multiple books and make numerous movies. Slate says, "And that's it!" I bet D'Souza's lack of success crushed his parents.

The website Uexpress goes even further in describing not only D'Souza as a xenophobic "self-hating immigrant" but also accusing the majority of South Asians as such. They even charged former Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal, of Xenophobia and being a "self-hating immigrant."

The funny thing about this far leftist website calling Bobby Jindal a "self-hating immigrant" is that Jindal is not an immigrant at all. He was born in the United States. They must have looked at him and saw brown skin and said, "immigrant." Bobby Jindal was born and raised as an American.

Another non-immigrant "self-hating immigrant" referenced in the same story is the current ambassador to the UN and former Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, but this isn't the first time Haley had to deal with these type of low brow attacks.

Another leftist propaganda website accused Haley of changing her name from Nimrata Randhawa to Nikki to cover up her Indian heritage because "she wants to be white" and she "rejects the immigrant roots" of her parents. This idea is not only insulting but is entirely false.

Let's start out with the easily debunked part of the story. Haley did change her last name from Randhawa to Haley, but so do a lot of other women when they get married. You see, Nikki Haley is married to Michael Haley, and she took his last name. There is no secret hatred of her parent’s immigrant past there, but according to multiple left-wing websites, they "aren't buying that excuse."

Now let's dive into why Haley goes by "Nikki" instead of Nimrata. If you listen to mic.com, Haley changed her name to Nikki for political reasons. The problem is that this is entirely wrong. Haley didn't change her name for political reasons at all as mic.com would have you believe.

According to the liberal site, salon.com, Nikki means "small one." Haley has been called Nikki since she was a small child. The nickname was given to her by her family, but since she doesn't follow the leftist trend of kids from immigrants supporting open borders, then she must be a "self-hating immigrant."

It isn't just the so-called "self-hating immigrant" that the leftist goes after. Take the case of Dartmouth English professor, Jeffrey Hart, who was a senior editor at The National Review.  Hart, in 1975, wrote a review of the book, The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail. The French book is a very controversial book about immigration in France.

The Camp of the Saints is a book about a refugee crisis where immigrants refuse to assimilate, but at the same time, they demand first world conditions. The refuge starts to overtake the European population and begin to rape and murder their way across Europe. In the end, the only holdout country in Europe is Switzerland. The other nations of the world immediately deem Switzerland as a rogue nation for not opening their borders to immigrants.

In his 43-year-old review, Hart wrote, "Raspail brings his reader to the surprising conclusion that killing a million or so, starving refugees from India would be a supreme act of individual sanity and cultural health."

By writing that 43-year-old statement, Hart put a target on his back for the left to label him as xenophobic. The left uses Hart's perceived "xenophobia" to discredit all his points that he made before and after his review.

The left's thinking goes, "No matter how valid his opinion is, there is no need to engage this bigot in a debate."

Hart did write that Raspail believed in genocide and his book did state that genocide would be preferable to immigrants taking over Europe. The reason why Hart wrote that in the review is that it is the point of the book. In no point did Hart agree with Raspail that genocide was a good thing, but mentioning the subject of the book was enough for the leftist attack dogs.

It doesn't matter to the left that Hart wrote the review in 1975. What matters to them is that Hart read the book in the first place. This fact is more than we can say about the people condemning the book and him. One blogger who claims to have read the book states that the hero of the book kills off the immigrants by organizing a group of snipers to save Europe. That isn't how the book ends.

B Just by reading something that the leftist deem xenophobic, then the reader becomes xenophobic. They treat xenophobia like it is smallpox. Don't touch that book or you are going to get xenophobia! In the end, it isn't about what book someone reads. It is about using any information to tag a person with a label that would invalidate their opinion, eliminating the need to engage them in a battle of ideas.

My wife is a first-generation American. Both her mom and dad came over from Italy and were able to work hard and succeed. My father-in-law was a New York City cop and an Army Vet. My mother-in-law stayed home to raise her three kids. My wife learned English at the age of five. Through hard work, she became a doctor and served her country in the Air Force.

I also have two best friends. The first is also a first-generation American whose dad is from The Netherlands, and his mom is from Indonesia. He worked hard and became a successful architect. Guess what?  He and his family believe in legal immigration.

My other best friend's parents came over from Vietnam during the fall of Saigon. His older sister came over as a refuge and went onto become a VP for a major company. He and his brother are both engineers. They are against illegal immigration.

Being against illegal immigration does not mean you are xenophobic as the left would have you believe. All it means is that you believe in the sovereignty of the country, and the right of a nation to control its immigration policies.

The left has a reason for wanting illegal immigration. It all about the votes! If you don't have the majority to enact your leftist agenda, then just import people until you do. If someone calls you out on your thinly veiled attempt at changing the electorate, don't worry! All you have to do is call that person a xenophobe. It doesn't matter if the person is correct about your motives.

According to Procon, 6.78 million illegal immigrants came from Mexico in 2012.  Another 1.78 million illegal immigrants came from Central or South America in the same year.  The illegal immigrants from Mexico alone are more than all immigration from all other countries combined.

According to The Pew Research Center, these illegal immigrants are 75% more likely to back Democratic policies than that of Republican policies. When you compare that number to that of just 41% of all other cultures supporting Democratic systems you can see why they want to import these voters, but of course, I am just a xenophobe.

There is also a slow drift in what the public calls these people. First, they were called "illegal aliens." According to the leftist, that was insensitive so only a xenophobe would use those words! They are illegal immigrants!

Wait! No person is illegal, you xenophobe! These people are just "undocumented immigrants." That, of course, is true, unless they are under thirty, then they are "Dreamers."  You can't deport a Dreamer unless you don't have a heart!

Now the term the leftist likes to use is "undocumented Americans." Never mind the fact that they are not Americans at all. They leftist will have you believe that they have just as much right to be in this country as the person who was born here or came to this country legally. You guessed it. If you don't believe that they are Americans, then you are a xenophobe!

Ruben Navarrette Jr. of The San Francisco Gate newspaper stated after watching a film on illegal immigrants that, "After watching this inspirational film, I now realize that this undocumented American has a better understanding than I do of what this country is about."  He then went onto say, "How do I define American? It’s someone with courage, ingenuity, perseverance, work ethic, love of freedom. It’s someone who raises issues, raises consciousness and – if needed – raises hell."

Let me help out Mr. Navarrette on who is an American. Lucky for us the US Constitution provides the answer. Just because someone has courage, ingenuity, perseverance, work ethic, and a love of freedom doesn't make someone an American. You can find people from all over the world that embodies those traits, and you can see Americans (mostly on the left) that do not fall into that group of people.

Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly defines an American thus: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

To become a citizen of the United States, a person has to go through a lengthy process that takes years. Why should the people sneaking into the country get to jump in front of the line of people doing it the legal way? These are the questions the leftist doesn't want to answer, so they use name-calling. They threaten to brand the person asking the question some right-wing extremist.

Jorge Ramo is a Mexican born American Journalist working for Univision.   In his memoir, Stranger: The Challenge of a Latino Immigrant in the Trump Era, he goes after Trump and his supporters.  He claims that both Trump and his fans are Anti-immigrant.

Ramos states in his book, “This is not a book about Donald Trump.” He goes on, “But his entry into politics and his rise to power are directly related to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment thriving across the United States."

This charge against Trump and supporters isn't the only claim Ramos makes in his book.  He also says, “It’s as bad as I’ve ever seen . . . as if Trump has given people permission to attack immigrants and make racist remarks.” Yes! Trump told everyone to go out and beat people with brown skin according to Ramos.

So, what did Trump do to Ramos that would lead him to believe that Trump is anti-immigrant? Trump refused to give Ramos an interview. That's it! Trump, of course, is married to an immigrant. Ramos ignores that fact because Ramos is anti-European. To Ramos, non-Hispanics are not immigrants.

Don't take my word for it. On The Fox News Channel's “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Ramos claims, "This is our country, it is yours, it is mine, and it is ours. The interesting thing is   with the Trump administration and many people who support Donald Trump, they think it is their country, that it is a white country and they are absolutely wrong." He goes to say, "This is not a white country, this is not their country, it is ours, and that is precisely what I'm saying."

During the debate, there is no place where Tucker Carlson claimed that the United States is a "White Country." I couldn't find any reference that Trump claimed the United States was a "White Country." Ramos has a fondness for reminding people that by 2044 whites will be the minority. That might be the case, but why bring it up consistently?

On CNN when speaking to Anderson Cooper, Jorge Ramos, went as far as trying to claim that Republicans are against illegal immigration because they want to "Make America White Again." He was insinuating that the Trump campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" was code for some type of xenophobic racism.

Again, Ramos appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show. This time going as far as saying Americans do not have the right to complain about illegal immigration. In the country where anyone can complain about anything, Ramos tries to shut down the debate by declaring that by even discussing unlawful immigration, the discussion would be rooted in underlying xenophobia.

Once again, with Ramos, we are seeing the old leftist trope that if you cannot beat them then de-platform them. Ramos isn't alone in his de-platforming when it comes to illegal immigration. He uses a similar trick that a lot of the leftists use to de-platform.

When talking about illegal immigration, they remove the word "illegal." It is our job when discussing the topic with the leftist to keep reminding them it is illegal immigration we are against and not legal immigration. We cannot let them shape the discussion.

When they say, "People on the right hate immigration." Cut them off and say "No, we are against illegal immigration." After a while, the left will brand you a xenophobe, but that is the price we must pay to defend our ideas as Americans.

Another go-to talking point that the leftist likes to go to is that "we are a nation of immigrants." I like to remind them we are a nation that descended from people who came here through the legal process of immigration for the most part.

They will say something like, "The first settlers were illegal immigrants."

Instead of arguing the point that the Native Americans didn't have immigration rules, or that most people in the country didn't descend  from the original settlers, I like to say, "Yeah, and how did it turn out for the Native Americans?" Bam! Xenophobe title!

The open border leftist is opposed to any heightened border security in the US. Take for example the far-left British paper, The Guardian. They ran a headline saying, "US could face human rights crisis after Trump's xenophobic immigration orders."

Instead of giving details of what this crisis would be, The Guardian used the xenophobia card to try to shut down debate without having to provide evidence. They claim that Trump was at war with migrants for going after MS13. Yup the MS13 gang are just peace-loving vagabonds that Trump was picking on for no reason. MS13 cutting off the heads of their victims is just a practical joke!

In the article, the leftist paper also derides Trump for threatening to defund sanctuary cities. The Guardian doesn't consider that these cities are in violation of federal law. What if there were cities that violated federal law by outlawing abortion? Would it be OK if the federal government ignores that as well, or is it just leftist issues they can ignore? Either way, they make it sound as if Trump was planning a full-scale invasion of San Francisco.

The most comical thing in the article is that The Guardian is trying to say the US is in violation of the UN refugee policy for not opening our borders to all people from Central and South America. News flash, the US is not in violation of the UN refugee policy. The policy doesn't even bind the US to follow it. I would hope the reporter just didn't do their homework on the UN refugee policy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this reporter is once again playing the xenophobia card.

The Guardian brings up the fact that only 300,000 illegal immigrants in the US are violent criminals. Now if they would just apply the same logic to guns, then we can end the silly gun debate because there is a much lower percentage of firearms in the US that are used in a crime each year than that of violent criminals that are here illegally.

Speaking of the UK, they have their own issues with illegal immigration The Guardian should be covering. It seems like it is every day there is another acid or knife attack by an illegal immigrant in London. Maybe The Guardian should start covering that and let the US run their own immigration programs.

It is also papers closer to home that play this card, hoping to shut down debate. Rich Lord, of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, wrote a glowing review of the Book, ‘Fortress America’: A look at why Americans retreated into suburban xenophobia.

In the book, by Elaine Tyler May, the author goes into how suburban dwellers are just hidden xenophobes that hate immigrants. The book claims, “Trump's election in many ways marked the triumph of fortress America, with its pro-gun policies, legal vigilantism, mass incarceration, anti-immigrant sentiments, antipathy to women's and minority rights, fortified homes and vehicles, and deep-seated hostility to government.”

There is some much there to digest, but let's just look at the claim of "anti-immigrant sentiments." In the book, May assumes that the majority of people that live in the suburbs are xenophobic even though the suburbs have more than just white people. She backs up these claims by pointing to people wanting our immigration laws enforced. She intentionally mixes up legal immigration and illegal immigration. It is either all or nothing with her. You can be an enlightened member of the open border brigade or a dirty xenophobe.

Elaine Tyler May takes a gray issue and tries to turn it into a black and white one. This view doesn't work with the topic of immigration. There has to be a balance in immigration policies, but for many on the left, it is either good or evil. According to leftists, open borders is the good side, and there is no use talking to the evil side of society.

On Sunday, February 4th, 2018, Indianapolis Colts linebacker, Edwin Jackson, and his Uber driver, Jeffrey Monroe, tragically lost their lives. An illegal immigrant, Manuel Orrego-Savala, was allegedly driving drunk and without a license when his car hit Monroe's car, killing both Monroe and Jackson.

President Trump sent his condolences in a tweet by saying, “My prayers and best wishes are with the family of Edwin Jackson, a wonderful young man whose life was so senselessly taken.”

It was a heartfelt message, but the left lost their collective hive mind that the President would send out condolences to the families of the two men killed in the accident. They claimed that the tweet was xenophobic because Orrego-Savala was an illegal immigrant who should not have been the country.

Cynthia Tucker of USA Today wrote, "Trump would hardly have noticed Jackson’s death if it had not served his political purposes." She goes on to say, "The president has made his antipathy for undocumented immigrants an integral part of his political identity, and his base of racially resentful whites adores him for it."

Tucker is accusing Donald Trump and his "white" supporters of being xenophobes because Trump sent his condolences to the people that were killed by a drunk driver in a car crash. The left would much rather protect an illegal immigrant that killed two people than admit that some of the people here illegally aren't the best type of immigrants.

This USA Today article is a classic example of trying to de-platform a whole group of people at the same time. She isn't targeting Trump with a de-platforming attempt because Donald Trump just doesn't care about the labels the media gives him. He is the President. There isn't much she can do to him. So, she is doing the next best thing. She is trying to de-platform anyone that supports him.

She goes on to write, "With the plight of young undocumented immigrants – those called Dreamers – in the news, Trump has turned up the volume on his bigotry and xenophobia." Yes, the dreamer that killed two people by driving drunk.

If it weren't for the evil US immigration policy, maybe Orrego-Savala would have known not to drive drunk. Hell, perhaps the US led him to drinking and driving because we elected Trump to the Presidency. It just could be all the talk of a border wall that made Orrego-Savala such a horrible person. Wait! I guess I am a xenophobe.

The leftist would also like us to pretend that there are no "shit hole countries."  Yes, I am talking about the aptly named, "Shit hole Gate." It doesn't matter how terrible a country is; you can never consider it a shithole if you are on the right. Unless that country that you are labeling a shit hole is the US, then it is OK to fire away. If you believe another country outside the US is a shit hole, then you must be a xenophobe.

Donald Trump, in an immigration meeting, allegedly called several countries "shit holes."  One side claims he said it. The other side says he didn't say it. Unless you were there, you don't know for sure. Let's say for the sake of argument he did call other countries shit holes. Does that make the President of the United States a xenophobe? Does that discount everything that he said about immigration?

First, let's define a shit hole. According to the Oxford dictionary, a shit hole is an, "extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place." It is the place and not the people who live in the area. In fairness, it could be a shit hole due to the people, but it could also be a shit hole due to a natural disaster.

One of the places Trump called shit hole is the Republic of Haiti. Haiti lies on the island of Hispaniola. Haiti shares a border on the island with the Dominican Republic. If you look at satellite images of Hispaniola, you can see a clear border between the two neighboring countries.

Haiti's rain forest has been clear-cut over the years. The Dominican Republic has lush rainforest that stretches for miles in every direction. It is evident that the Dominican Republic side of the border is a lot more prosperous than the Haiti side of the border. The lack of prosperity alone doesn't necessarily make Haiti a shit hole.

In 2010 Haiti was rocked by a 7.0 earthquake just fifteen miles from the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince. The earthquake-ravaged Haiti experienced massive infrastructure failures and substantial loss of life. Does this damage make Haiti a shit hole?

Maybe not, but after the earthquake, a massive tsunami hit Haiti. This tsunami further devastated the small island country. The water from the tsunami killed countless more people bringing the death total to a staggering estimated 220,000 people. Does this make Haiti a shit hole?  Maybe not.

If this devastation didn't cause Haiti to become a shit hole, then the corruption that the country faced after these natural disasters surely did the job. There are still questions about where the people in charge of rebuilding Haiti spent the $13.5 billion in donations that were taken in from across the globe.

"There have certainly been improvements," said Brian Concannon of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti to NPR. "The rubble is off the streets. Haiti's back more or less to normal. But there have not been the improvements there should have been, given the resources."

As we can see, Haiti isn't exactly an island paradise where people go to honeymoon so why did the left get offended when Trump made his now infamous "shit hole" comment? It could be because the crown prince and princess of the Democratic party were allegedly involved in fleecing Haiti for billions through their foundation.

"The Clinton family, they are crooks, they are thieves, they are liars," Haitian activist Dahoud Andre told the BBC in an interview about the Clinton Foundation's actions in Haiti.

He might just have a point. The Clinton Foundation was in charge of the relief efforts for Haiti. Out of all the billions raised through charities, only 9.6% of the money made it to either the Haitian government or Haitian relief organizations. The Clinton Foundation overpaid companies for work in Haiti. All these companies had ties to the Clintons. The book, Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweitzer, goes in-depth into the corruption of the Clintons.

Oxfam was another charity that was supposedly helping Haiti. Instead of helping the poor people of Haiti, the employees of Oxfam traded aid for sex. According to the BBC, Oxfam employees went as far as holding sex parties with the women who were just worrying about how they were going to feed their families.

Instead of admitting that their liberal heroes caused a country to become a shit hole by exploiting that country in their time of need, and using a state as their personal piggy bank, the leftist will just throw down the xenophobia card. As we have seen, this is to shut down all debate and protect their exalted leaders because they are "with her." The left is excellent at using tribalism and identity politics to keep their ranks in line.

The use of this card does nothing to help the actual people of the so-called "shit hole" countries. It is a fake outrage to take the focus off why these countries are the way they are.   The leftist must hide this exploitation of these countries by their leftist leaders. This protection of progressive icons goes back many years. Just look at how the left has canonized the mass murderer, Che´ Guevara.

The leftist doesn't care about Haiti just like they don't care about the plight of the illegal immigrant in the US. It is only a chance to throw down another card and claim if you are against them then you don't deserve a voice. I believe that this is the reason why the polls are always so wrong during the election cycle.

The left is forcing people "underground" with their beliefs. When people go into the ballot box, there is no one watching, so they vote the way they actually feel about the issues.  That is why unions are so opposed to secret ballots. Secret ballots eliminate bullying and shaming so the left can't have that.

The left is really good at controlling the narrative of the mainstream media. This control is mostly because of the leftists’ power on the mainstream news cycles. This power helps them sell the idea that the right is full of backward xenophobes. They also push the idea that if someone wants to secure our borders then they are xenophobic. I am looking at you, Marco Rubio!

According to the Washington Post, only 7% of all journalists are Republican. So, when someone points out that 300,000 illegal immigrants are felons, they can point to yell "xenophobe!" No other proof is needed. Instead of the story being that other countries have exported 300,000 criminals to the US, the media twist the story into "Donald Trump thinks all Mexicans are rapist and murderers." He never said that by the way.

As we have seen in this chapter, by shifting the language and the narrative of the debate, almost anyone can be branded as xenophobic even if the person being called a xenophobe is an immigrant as in the case of the left's attack of the brilliant Dinesh D'Souza or UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley.

The reader should also walk away with the understanding of how the left tries to use confusion to accomplish their goals. As I have shown earlier,  the left removed the word "illegal" and replaced it with the word “undocumented." Then we saw how they then removed "undocumented" just to leave us with the word "immigrant" to convince the general population that anyone who is against illegal immigration is against all immigration.

The leftist will also make up cute names for illegal immigrants such as the term "dreamers." When someone refuses to use this adorable little nickname for any illegal immigrant under the age of thirty, the liberal left automatically deems that person a xenophobe.  They will call all "dreamers" children. A twenty-nine-year-old man is not a kid, but that doesn't matter to them because it doesn't further their agenda.

This chapter showed how the leftist would use the xenophobia card to de-platform someone that they are scared of engaging in a war of ideas. You either play by the lefts’ set of rules, or they will take their ball and demand that you go home.