Setbacks: New England Edition

Governor Deval Patrick wins reelection in Massachusetts and announces the biggest amnesty of all time.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Elections have consequences.

I have hammered away at that theme for almost four months now. In some parts of the country, restrictionists have gained ground on immigration. Specifically, I have drawn attention to Utah, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, and Wisconsin. These Heartland states and several others like them are expected to pass (or at least try to pass) Arizona-style immigration reform in 2011.

Elsewhere in America, but particularly in the Blue State citadels in New England and the Left Coast, we have lost ground on immigration. A quick review of the most prominent anti-White websites like Imagine2050,, DailyKos, and Racism Review is sufficient to reveal that these self-described “progressives” are 100 percent in the tank for the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is the anti-White party. It is the party of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, and SWPL progressives. The cancer is concentrated in the Democratic caucus. The overwhelming majority of votes that are cast against restrictionist immigration reform come from Democrats. The handful of Democrats who are NumbersUSA “true reformers” on immigration (among them Walter Minnick of Idaho and Gene Taylor of Mississippi) lost their races in the 2010 midterm elections.

The Republican Party is slowly becoming the White Party. Virtually all the votes that are cast for restrictionist immigration reform are made by Republicans. Within the Republican Party, there are two competing factions on immigration, but the restrictionists now have the upper hand, and business interests have been thwarted for now. Without a doubt, the cancer also exists within Republican ranks (look no further than the Chamber of Commerce and Lindsey Graham), but it is objectively weaker on that side of the aisle.

Those who claim there are no real differences between “system politicians” are misrepresenting the immigration debate. There is a big difference between Jan Brewer and Janet Napolitano. There was a big difference between Pete Wilson and Gray Davis on Prop 187.  There would have been an even bigger difference between Tom Tancredo and John Hickenlooper. The reality of the matter is that restrictionists at the state and federal level are concentrated in the Republican Party.

The states where restrictionist immigration reform is moving forward are Red States like Arizona with Republican governors and state legislatures. The states where amnesty and expanding legal immigration is advancing are Blue States with Democratic governors and state legislatures.

If you live in a Blue State, prepare yourself, “worse is better” is probably coming to your community. The fantasists have got their way.


In the 2010 midterm elections, Governor Deval Patrick (a negro) won reelection in Massachusetts, defeating his Republican challenger 48 percent to 42 percent, with 8 percent going to an Independent candidate. The Republican Charles Baker and the Independent Tim Cahill were both supporters of a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration. The consequences of the Democratic victory in the Massachusetts Governor race will soon be felt on immigration policy.

Patrick has agreed to push for all 131 proposals in a controversial report that would weaken the restrictionist position in Massachusetts. This includes driver’s licenses, in-state tuition, access to public services (including complete healthcare coverage) for illegal aliens, new “civil rights protections,” and the rest of the La Raza comprehensive amnesty wish list.

“The spirit of human kindness and compassion will flourish in this commonwealth. We will do what we can. I know that embracing newcomers is out of fashion these days. The concern over illegal immigration has become so shrill that all immigrants get swept up in that emotion. I want you to know that you are welcome here in this commonwealth. This is your commonwealth. This is your home.”

Unlike Nathan Deal of Georgia, Gov. Deval Patrick has promised Massachusetts voters that he will not be signing an Arizona-style immigration law, “I just don’t think an Arizona-type law is right for us, and as long as I have anything to say, it won’t be.”

In a statement released Tuesday, Massachusetts House Minority Leader Brad Jones said in-state tuition for illegal aliens had failed before and would again:

“I am confident speaking on behalf of the entire Republican Caucus in saying Governor Patrick’s plan to allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates is not only a ridiculous idea but also a slap in the face to all Massachusetts taxpayers who expect state government to be focusing on stimulating the economy and putting people back to work. Providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants should not be a priority of Governor Patrick and the fact that it is does not shock me, but it certainly disappoints me.”

In the Massachusetts House, Republicans doubled their numbers in the 2010 midterm elections. A number of freshmen restrictionists were elected to office. Earlier this year, Republican lawmakers in Massachusetts pushed for sweeping crackdowns on illegal immigration, but both measures failed in the Massachusetts House due to Democratic opposition.

In the Massachusetts 10 congressional race, the restrictionist Jeff Perry was defeated by Bill Keating in Cape Cod, 46.9 percent to 42.4 percent, with another 11 percent of the vote being wasted on Independent candidates.

More famously, Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate race in a special election in January. He replaced Ted Kennedy who used that seat to advance every piece of destructive immigration legislation to go through Congress from the Immigration Act of 1965 to the McCain-Kennedy amnesty of 2006.

In Massachusetts, “worse is better” kept Ted Kennedy in office for over forty years. After half a century of “worse is better,” which ceded large parts of the American Southwest to Hispanic illegal aliens, the Governor of Massachusetts is Deval Patrick, a negro, who wants to legislate the biggest amnesty of all time for illegal aliens in that state.

Let his words sink in: “This is your commonwealth. This is your home.”

Alternatively, if the Republicans had won the Massachusetts governorship and control of the state legislature, the Bay State would be following in the footsteps of Texas and Wisconsin.

“Worse is better”: a political theory for the mentally retarded.

Rhode Island

Governor-elect Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island campaigning with Doris De Los Santos, head of the Rhode Island Latino PAC, in Providence last month.

Rhode Island is another Blue State in New England. A recent Gallup poll found that Rhode Island has the highest number of self identified liberals in America: 32 percent. Even in capitol of Blue America, the liberal advantage in Rhode Island is negated by the fact that 36 percent of residents are “moderates” and 29 percent are “conservatives.”

If conservatives and moderates team up in Rhode Island, they can defeat liberals with a winning coalition. In 2002, Republican Don Carcieri was elected Governor of Rhode Island. In 2008, Carcieri used his office to sign an executive order which instructed Rhode Island state police to check the immigration status of people who are arrested and when there is a “reasonable suspicion” they are illegal aliens.

In essence, Rhode Island had adopted Arizona-style immigration reform by executive order. That executive order also required the Rhode Island state government and state contractors to use the E-Verify system which requires employers to check the immigration status all new employees.

Unfortunately, the infamous RINO Lincoln Chafee is now Governor-elect of Rhode Island. He defeated Republican John Robitaille in a three way race as an Independent candidate. Chafee squeaked out a victory in Rhode Island with 36.1 percent of the vote. Robitaille, a “system politician,” had 33.6 percent.

In the last Rhode Island gubernatorial debate, John Robitaille stridently defended Carcieri’s executive order on immigration:

“Robitaille also offered the most strident support for an executive order issued by Carcieri that cracked down on illegal immigration. He said he strongly supported the state’s use of the E-Verify database to check the legal status of new hires of state agencies and vendors — Block and Caprio also say they support it — and opposed offering in-state college tuition to illegal immigrant students.

“If you’re not here legally, you need to leave,” Robitaille said.”

That was the stark choice facing voters in Rhode Island. They chose Lincoln Chafee over John Robitaille. Yesterday, Chafee repeated his pledge to rescind Carcieri’s executive order.

So instead of having Arizona-style immigration reform and E-Verify in force in Rhode Island, among one of the few states in the nation to be that fortunate, the Ocean State will now become an attractive destination for the illegal aliens who are about to be ejected from the Red States that are about to pass tough new immigration laws.


The losses in New England are hard to swallow.

In Massachusetts, Whites had the opportunity to elect a Republican governor and state legislature that would have passed new restrictionist immigration laws. Negro Deval Patrick and Jew Barney Frank were vulnerable to defeat. There was also a chance of picking up a House seat for restrictionists in Cape Cod that was narrowly lost. Now, Governor Patrick will push harder to make comprehensive amnesty a reality in the Bay State.

In Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee won the Governor race and will rescind Governor Carcieri’s executive order mandating E-Verify and Arizona-style checks of the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens. If John Robitaille had won, with a fraction of the vote swaying in his direction, we would have had the opportunity to build upon the foundation already in place and go on offense even further. The goal posts will now be moved in just the opposite direction.

Elections have consequences.

In Massachusetts and Rhode Island, “worse is better” triumphed over “moving the goal posts.” As in California, our enemies are exuberant, will attempt to solidify their victories, and Whites will be left worse off than they were before. We missed a historical opportunity to score points deep in Blue territory.

Alabama is moving in the opposite direction. In my next post, I will return to the South, and throw some more light on how the ground game on restrictionist immigration reform is moving forward in this region.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. “Within the Republican Party, there are two competing factions on immigration, but the restrictionists now have the upper hand, and business interests have been thwarted for now.”

    Late’s see what happens before we pop the champagne.

  2. In Massachusetts, “worse is better” kept Ted Kennedy in office for over forty years.

    Kennedy won all those years because of Irish identity politics. A lot of otherwise racist Irish-American voters were willing to vote for libtard Teddy out of respect for the Kennedy dynasty. When you add their votes to the huge amount of libtards/union thugs/gov pork addicts in the state it made Teddy unbeatable.

    As to Rhode Island, this is a case where worse is better. As a Southerner, you can’t understand what it’s like to live an environment where blacks and hispanics are not a demographic force. It makes the whites soft and blind to their racial interests. When these all white blue states have their communities ruined by illegals fleeing red states, the whites their will start voting like Southeners.

    *The case of California proves nothing for a couple of reasons:
    1. Minorities have essentially taken over the state. Whites are a minority there.
    2. Right wing whites continue to flee while the wealthy libtard demographics of San Francisco and LA have the money to insulate themselves from the Hispanic invasion.
    3. The Republican party there is dominated by pro Hispanic RINOs. A Pete Wilson type could still rally enough white support to win in CA, even today.

  3. Maybe the Republican Party is slowly becoming the White Party. On the other hand, better men than me have been calling it the Stupid Party since before you were born.

    Look at the obvious example: the GOP has the more hardshell stance on Israel. Yet the Jewish vote could care less and vote Democrat more often than Hispanics.

    Hunter, I hope you are right. Maybe John McCain, Sarah Palin and Michael Steele will wake up one morning in a fit of conviction and start attacking immigration, AA and AIPAC. I’m just not holding my breath.

  4. Otis,

    We already had the Arizona law in Rhode Island before the election. In Massachusetts, we had a real shot at cracking down on illegal immigration, without transforming Massachusetts into another California.

  5. The fact that so many whites in blue states still see the Democratic party as a vialbe option shows that we do need things to get worse. Whites in the northeast need to see first hand that the Democrats are the anti white party.

  6. And one other thing: all the Hispanics that we are going to chase out of red states need to go somewhere, and it sure as hell isn’t going to be back to Mexico, so funnelling them into blue states is the best option.

  7. That’s a good point.

    The post-Civil War liberalism of the Midwest came to a crashing halt when the ex-slaves began to pour into St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. Maybe that is why the North suddenly found a new respect for the South around the time of Birth of a Nation?

    At the same time, there is already a huge black and Hispanic presence in Illinois and New York, so I am not sure how adding to their existing numbers would make much of a difference. The “diversity” would have to fan out to lily white areas like Vermont for it to have a positive impact.

    Note: Maine and Minnesota are now infested with Somali pimps and criminals.

  8. I want to sneak in a thought here. History, all of American history, is now seen though the lens of leftist and in particular black interpretation.
    Evil whites killing, burning and acting ever so bad for no reason at all except their hated of blacks and perhaps Jews.
    The behavior of blacks, the future for their race that whites then were able to (unlike so many today) see is buried in old books and newspaper accounts, speeches etc. and perhaps still in the memory of some very old living whites.
    Reading the past and looking at today and thinking of the possible future we can see now how clearly whites of 100 years ago saw the issues we face today.

  9. I have heard that the lame duck session of Congress plans to pass the so-called DREAM Act. Like all bad bills, it has come up enough times that I believe it is going to be slipped in … eventually, anyway. So I have an idea.

    Rather than attacking the idea of in-state college tuition for illegal aliens, WHY NOT ATTACK THIS AS AFFIRMATIVE DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR FAVOR AGAINST EVERY ONE ELSE? IOW, why should any foreigner who respects our laws be penalized by out of country tuition rates. Why should any out-of-state resident be penalized with out of state tuition? WHY NOT DEMAND THAT EVERYONE, REGARDLESS OF STATE OR NATIONAL ORIGIN PAY ONE RATE FOR COLLEGE TUITION?

    After all, it was these squirrelly universities who came up with this idea in the first place. They could have easily decided to accept illegals, but charged them out-of-country tuition, since they are legal residents of another country. But they decided to show how hep, how happening, how politically correct, how compassionate, how liberal, how empathetic, how ad nauseum ad infinitum they are, so why not hoist them by their own egalitarian petards?!

    And they WILL be hoisted by their own egalitarian petards! Because, you know that EVERYONE will be demanding in-state tuition at current charges. If they uniformly try to raise everyone’s tuition rates to … say … out of state tuition rates … there will be hell to pay. The students and their parents will riot.

    So, I think the best approach is to call ALL the Congressional Conservatives and tell them that when this so-called DREAM Act comes up this session that they grow some balls and get out on talk radio, cable television and on the floor of the Congress and DEMAND that Congress pass what I call the One Tuition Rate For Everybody Act.

    Congress may not be inclined to PUNISH people who broke into the country illegally, but they shouldn’t REWARD them, either.

  10. “The Democratic Party is the anti-White party. It is the party of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, and SWPL progressives. The cancer is concentrated in the Democratic caucus.”

    There is nothing new about this. Unfortunately, (age having caught up with my memory-might have been in Simpsons’s “Which Way Western Man”?, but I am not sure), I cannot recall exactly where I read this, but many decades ago an important public figure active in the concerns of the left said that it was no longer necessary to lobby the Democratic Party as it had officially adopted the precepts of Communism. It may be new to the younger Americans, but it is actually old stuff indeed. Yes, the Democratic Party is the “anti-White party” (although originally billed as the anti-Western Party) and it is now openly flouting its agenda. I may be selfish in saying so, but I hope that I do not live to see a repetition of what happened to ethnic Whites (Ukranians) in the Soviet Union after the “Communists” (read Bolsheviks) came to power there happen here.

  11. >I may be selfish in saying so, but I hope that I do not live to see a repetition of what happened to ethnic Whites

    The danger is real. I hear people talking about White Guilt all the time, but what they don’t consider is non-Whites have been conditioned by the same propaganda, into feeling resentment for hurts they have never experienced and so feel entitled to take recompense by force.

    If Whites are foolish enough to let themselves become a minority in America, they will learn this lesson the hard way, because the resentment taps can’t be turned off now, as the non-Whites are fueling it with their own media.

  12. What we really need in Red states is legislation that will make it impossible for Blue state residents to settle in Red states especially once their home states (Blue states) become unliveable because of voting ignorance and diehard liberalism (remember that California bitch who relocated to South Carolina and then complained about Confederate flags being sold at a fair in Charleston? ( I believe it was Charleston.)). Elections have consequences and those consequences, when willingly embraced and voted in, need to be permanent! We don’t need whites like this ruining our Red state governance. They’re the epitome of highly-acceptable collateral damage.

  13. No….when I say polarization, I mean it. This includes GEOGRAPHIC polarization: let the Jews, ethnoids, and cosmic whites concentrate in particular areas – urban hells, the coastal states – and let the implicit/explicit whites concentrate in flyover country. An effective Civil War has to have more than a political-idelogical basis. It has to have a geo basis. And this is it.

  14. “What we really need in Red states is legislation that will make it impossible for Blue state residents to settle in Red states especially once their home states (Blue states) become unliveable because of voting ignorance and diehard liberalism”
    Joanne; That sounds good on the surface (if it were possible for such legislation to be passed). However, it smacks of Soviet policy in that the only way to effect such a thing would be the requirement to carry National ID papers and institute checkpoints and roadblocks. On the other hand, such draconian measures could be on the way in any case. It has been speculated that the superhighway that our goverment has been pushing for to connect Mexico with Canada, ostensibly to avoid using unionized dock workers in shipyards in the US, will actually serve to divide the country in half and make travel a nightmare. This makes a certain amount of sense when you consider that we are already being conditioned to hate air travel; using the airlines (the body checks, the searches, the long waits in line, etc). In the world of politics, there are no coincidences.

  15. Remember that some of the “Red States” will go majority non-white when many of the “Blue States” are still overwhelmingly white. Compare TX, GA and AZ to VT, NH and ME.

  16. Rhode Island is just … different. It is getting less white by the day, thought that’s more to do with Latinos than Blacks. Providence, which is now majority-non-White, has the whitest suburbs, in relation to the city, of any major urban area in the country.

    But most of those Whites lack any ethno-racial consciousness, even though a lot of them are “Reagan Democrat” type blue collar voters, and no fans of darker peoples. They go to great troubles to live nowhere near the Blacks and Latinos.

    Robitaille ran a crappy campaign, simple as that. The RI GOP is mostly pathetic, and while it is appalling that Chafee, who is a walking SWPL cariacature, got elected, no one acquainted with RI was really surprised. Robitaille sounded good on immigration, but was otherwise rather useless, sounding at times like a feminist nutjob going on about “deadbeat dads,” etc.

    It’s important to note that a lot of Whites in RI … aren’t that white. Huge numbers are of Portuguese and Southern Italian (Sicilian) descent and are often White only in relative terms. It’s not a coincidence that RI has the lowest percentage of people of Northern European background of any majority-White state AND has the lowest average IQ of any majority-White state.

    Think a whole lot of Jersey Shore, plus the Portuguese, who make the Sicilians seem like Aryan supermen in ethics, attitude, and skin color.

    Enough to depress any WN. Only upside is that RI, being a quintessential Blue State in its fiscal and taxation policies, is only a few years aways from a CA-style meltdown that will force real changes, and hopefully drive the scum back whence they came.

Comments are closed.