Policy Issues / Healthy Communities

Policy Brief: The Great Replacement in Theory and Practice

By tying the Great Replacement Theory to white-nationalist and anti-Semitic violence, the establishment condemns any recognition of ongoing demographic transformation as racist.

Summary: In the midst of an historic illegal immigration crisis, American political discourse has seen increased interest in the so-called “Great Replacement Theory.” As American birth rates decline and the foreign-born population increases, demographic replacement of American citizens is clearly not just a theory, but a reality—attested to by more than two decades of eager documentation and projections by the liberal establishment. By tying the Great Replacement Theory to white-nationalist and anti-Semitic violence, the establishment condemns any recognition of ongoing demographic transformation as racist. This has created what is called a “celebration parallax,” in which the acceptable answer to the question “Are American citizens being displaced by the foreign-born?” depends on who is asking. Concerned citizens are told not to believe their lying eyes, while the progressive Left celebrates a majority-minority future as a moral triumph. This paper seeks to distinguish between the controversies surrounding the Great Replacement Theory and the reality of America’s transforming demographics, as well as to highlight the long record of cheering by the Left that makes it reasonable for Americans to fear these population changes will transform our national culture and represent a deliberate policy of replacing citizens with subjects. 


“Some party hack decreed that the people

had lost the government’s confidence

and could only regain it with redoubled effort.

If that is the case, would it not be be simpler,

If the government simply dissolved the peopleAnd elected another?”

—Bertolt Brecht1

The United States faces an illegal immigration crisis at the southern border, exacerbated by the willful negligence of the Biden administration to fulfill its Article IV, Section 4 obligations under the U.S. Constitution to protect the states from invasion. This invasion poses an existential threat to both the security and sovereignty of the republic, as millions of people from all over the world pour into this country. Meanwhile, large corporations and their political cheerleaders continue to clamor for increased legal immigration pathways—such as expanding the H-1B visa program—to import foreign labor at the expense of American citizens.2 The displacement of American labor under the H-1B program and similar guest worker visas drags down wages for all citizens, not just those put out of work, but has long been defended by corporate interests as a “necessity” to fill jobs that Americans either “won’t take” or “aren’t qualified” to fill.

In effect, the federal government is actively engaged in a large-scale population importation effort, against the interests of the citizens it is supposed to represent and from whom it derives its legitimacy. These foreign citizen importation policies—both legal and illegal—stem from a destructive combination of constitutional negligence, willful refusal to execute already established laws, and prioritization of the wants of large (often multinational) corporations over the interests of working Americans and their families. At the same time, key American institutions in academia, business, government, and philanthropy continue an ideological crusade, armed with Marxist-derived Critical Theory, to pit citizens against one another based on racialized identities. These efforts aim to condition Americans to view skin color and ethnicity as symbols of moral worth and advance radical policies that will destroy the fundamental American conviction that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights.

The social and political ramifications of this—foreign population importation efforts combined with institutionalized race essentialism—are too often under-discussed or ignored. How does unfettered immigration affect the integrity of American communities? What impact is foreign worker importation having on wages, corporate character, and the loyalty of American companies to American ideals, rooted in God-given rights and constitutional governance? How does it change the character of the country if the ratio of foreign-born non-citizens to American citizens increases? Questions like these weigh in the minds of millions of concerned Americans.3 Yet, even asking some of them is taboo—deemed racist by corporate-controlled media. To the extent that these questions are broached, they have been hijacked by extreme elements on the political Right and Left, muddling legitimate concerns with dark narratives that elevate and prioritize an anti-American race essentialism. 

This paper seeks to address one of the many third rails in our political discourse: the “Great Replacement Theory.” Specifically, this paper seeks to provide a legitimate examination of its validity. Demographic replacement is not a theory, but a reality—America’s citizens are being displaced by the foreign-born—and thus interest in the Great Replacement Theory does not come from nowhere, and should not be dismissed as the product of disinformation and conspiracy theorizing. When it comes to describing this displacement, the main difference between the woke Left, the fringe Right, and the vast majority of Americans in between is how each group defines demographics, whether through the lens of race identitarianism, or through a concern for the cultural continuity and civic responsibilities of the nation—the latter of which is decidedly uninterested in, or opposed to, race essentialism as a factor in the overall discussion. Despite the way the Left has celebrated this replacement while at the same time associating those who dare to notice or object to it with racism and white supremacy, there should be an open and honest discussion of these demographic and political trends, and their effect on the interests of all Americans. One can repudiate racism and still be concerned with the radical transformation of the country: the nature of American culture, American political order, and American citizenship are at stake. 

The Great Replacement: Origins and Embrace of a Theory

“You will not replace us!” —Renaud Camus4

The Great Replacement Theory has conflicting stories of origination, but the broad consensus is that French writer, political commentator, and poet Renaud Camus popularized the phrase in his 2011 book, “Le Grand Remplacement.”5 In it, Camus described Europe’s elites as engaging in a “genocide by substitution.”6 His concept can be thought of as “reverse colonization,” wherein mostly non-white immigrants replace native white European and Western citizens in an “ethnic and civilizational substitution.”

Camus’s observation of replacement began, according to him, in the mid-1990s and developed in large part in response to increasing waves of mostly Muslim migrants and refugees being let into Europe. Camus described the policy as emblematic of modernity. “The very essence of modernity is the fact that everything—and really everything—can be replaced by something else, which is absolutely monstrous.”7 Though Camus spent much of his life as an ardent left-wing socialist and as a well-known gay activist in France, the arguments proffered by Camus in his books and essays regarding this alleged replacement have been notably adopted by white nationalists and other groups that operate on the extreme fringes of the political Right, both in Europe and the United States. 

The American political Left, therefore, describes the Great Replacement Theory as “a racist conspiracy narrative [that] falsely asserts there is an active, ongoing, and covert effort to replace white populations in current white-majority countries.”8 This account of the Great Replacement, wherein a cabal of political elites is deliberately working to replace white populations in white-majority countries, has received increased attention following episodes of extremist violence, such as the murderous rampage of the Buffalo shooter at a supermarket in upstate New York in May 2022, after his manifesto revealed his obsession with it.9

In a preoccupation with race in immigration patterns, the Left and extremist Right converge. The fringes of the political Right, embodied by individuals like Nick Fuentes, view the danger of demographic transformation through a frame of racist identitarianism that is antithetical to the fundamental American proposition that all men are created equal and have equal value in the eyes of their Creator. Many in the mainstream political Left, meanwhile, also view demographic replacement through a prism of racist identitarianism. This view, which embraces demographic replacement while it condemns the Great Replacement Theory, could charitably be described as schizophrenic, but is generally better understood to be deliberately deceitful.

Critical Theory and the Great Replacement Celebration Parallax

“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in U.S. society.” —Race Traitor10

The political Left touts the electoral benefits of demographic replacement while condemning people who believe this replacement is destructive. This “celebration parallax”—a term coined by Michael Anton—wherein the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who is talking about it, persists because widespread institutional capture allows the Left to set the terms of public debates.11 Indeed, the celebration parallax concerning the Great Replacement Theory has been given intellectual legitimacy by the spread of Critical Theory throughout key academic, corporate, and government institutions. 

Critical Theory is a Marxist-derived conceptual framework that categorizes individuals into two classes: oppressor and oppressed.12 While its technical concern is with race and hierarchies as socially constructed categories that produce different experiences, perspectives, and power dynamics, in practice Critical Theory encourages a worldview that sees American politics through the prism of race essentialism, and it has been finally recognized in recent years as one of the most destructive sets of concepts to enter American discourse.13 Critical Theory, especially critical race theory, castigates white Americans as “oppressors” who, due to their “whiteness,” must inherently seek to dominate non-whites.

In response to these structural social conditions, the Critical Theory-inflected or “woke” Left seeks revolutionary methods of correcting alleged injustices. This provides ample opportunity to celebrate demographic replacement, even as they condemn the Great Replacement Theory for association with fringe figures who invoke it as justification for anti-Semitism and racist violence. Thus progressives perpetuate racism even as they decry racism. Mark Potok, a former senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, has celebrated the notion that America is a better country because “white dominance is on the decline as the demographic white majority heads for oblivion over the course of the next 30 years.”14

Former Harvard professor and communist Noel Ignatiev, who co-founded the New Abolitionist Society and founded a journal called Race Traitor, named after a book he coauthored in the mid-1990s, famously advocated for the complete abolition of the white race and pledged to “keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”15 Note a certain coyness about whether this destruction refers to only a white race category or to all white-skinned people.

Similarly, Rutgers professor Brittney Cooper, who was caught on video in a violent and racist rant against white Americans as the blowback to Critical Race Theory was intensifying in 2021, said that she believes “white people are committed to being villains in the aggregate.”16 Cooper went on to pointedly outline her preferred approach to dealing with white Americans, which is to “take these motherf****s out.”17

Cooper can make such statements because leftist racial demagogues such as Ibram X. Kendi have made the soil of current discourse fertile for them. As Kendi said recently, “Whiteness prevents white people from connecting to humanity.”18 This promulgation of explicit racial animus—served by Kendi and other purveyors of Critical Theory under the laughable guise of so-called “anti-racism”—provides the lifeblood for attacks on anyone who criticizes policies that displace the interests of American citizens (white, black, brown, or otherwise) with the mass importation of non-citizens as racist or white supremacists.

Indeed, while progressives decry replacement theory as conspiratorial paranoia motivating white nationalists and their ilk, many simultaneously perpetuate the very same race essentialism and replacement narrative, only characterizing white people or “whiteness” as undesirable. Consider the media attention given to books like White Fragility and corporate and academic efforts to “decenter whiteness” in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. There is an entire cottage industry within America’s institutions dedicated to advancing race essentialism with explicit animus geared toward “whiteness.” 

This celebration parallax behavior slips out even among progressive elected officials. 

When he was Vice President, Joe Biden described the ongoing border crisis in 2015 as a positive. “There is a second thing in that black box: an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop,” he said at the time. “Folks like me who are Caucasian, of European descent, for the first time in 2017 we’ll be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority.” Then-Vice President Biden continued, “Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock,” he said. “That’s not a bad thing, that’s a source of our strength.”19 

In 2021, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) gave a floor speech in the U.S. Senate and bragged that “The demographics of America are not on the side of the Republican Party. The new voters in this country are moving away from them, away from Donald Trump, away from their party creed that they preach.”20

That same year, Representative Yvette Clark (D-NY) touted the importance of illegal immigration for her district in terms of accruing political power, outright stating “We have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants. And you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, ‘the doors of the inn being closed,’ ‘no room at the inn,’ I’m saying, you know, I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”21

And during the latest Senate attempt to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) told MSNBC host Chris Hayes that their strategy to push through legislation has failed to deliver “for the people we care about most—the undocumented Americans that are in this country.”22

Demographics and Destiny: The Left’s Not-So-Secret Embrace of Great Replacement

You know, people say that demographics are not destiny. Well, we’re trying to make it destiny so that’s the work that we are doing.” —Judith Browne Dianis23

Progressives in Congress have long sought to link proponents of secure borders with support for white nationalists by way of replacement theory. As recently as January 30, 2024, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that Republicans using invasion rhetoric to describe the chaos at the southern border are doing so often as “a dog whistle for the Great Replacement Theory, a racist and anti-Semitic trope that suggests that a liberal cabal is directing non-white populations to invade Western countries to replace native white populations.”24 

Progressives have used the Great Replacement Theory as a tool to attack candidates, lawmakers, groups, or citizens concerned with the impact of mass immigration. In the wake of the 2022 Buffalo massacre, House Democrats passed a resolution sponsored by Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) condemning replacement theory as a “White supremacist conspiracy theory that has been used to falsely justify racially motivated, violent acts of terrorism domestically and internationally.”25 It was one of the central issues in the 2022 Ohio Senate race between then-candidate J.D. Vance and his opponent, former Congressman Tim Ryan, who accused Vance of subscribing to the same theory espoused by the Buffalo shooter because he supports securing the southern border.26 

Yet, despite the frequent recriminations against individuals who recognize demographic replacement, and their immediate association with white supremacy and racism, it is the political Left that has largely mainstreamed the discussion of demographic replacement in the media, embracing it as a desirable outcome. Indeed, progressives have touted the alleged social and policy benefits of a non-white population increase and white population decrease for several decades now.

In their famous 2002 book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, Ruy Texeira and John Judis suggested that demographic change, specifically the ascendance of a non-white minority population as a larger share of the electorate, could lead to a sustainable majority for the Democrat Party.27 The assumption in this and works like it was that non-white voters, especially Hispanics, would remain loyal to Democrats and therefore elevate Democrats to electoral majorities that otherwise might not emerge or take decades longer to construct. This paved the way for the popularity of the phrase “demographics is destiny” in the context of U.S. domestic political circles and arguably helped push political progressives toward a more overt ideology of race essentialism leading into the Obama years.

Texeira and Judis pointed out in their book that minorities (i.e. non-white voters) constituted just 10 percent of the electorate during the 1972 presidential election. By the 2000 election, that number had increased to 19 percent.28 According to more recent data from the 2020 election, that number has now risen even further to 30 percent.29 At the time, Texeira and Judis saw this development as a positive and argued that a coalition of “diverse minorities” had given the Democratic Party a “large potential advantage in national and some state elections over Republican candidates.”30

In a sense, then, The Emerging Democratic Majority was predicated on the most distilled version of replacement theory: that non-white populations are replacing white populations, especially white working-class men, to the presumed benefit of the governing political class.31 Texeira and Judis tangentially touched on the role that immigration politics might play in fostering this electoral advantage, stating that “Hispanic support is a crucial part of a new Democratic majority. Hispanics are the minority group that is growing the most in terms of both absolute numbers and percentage of population.”32 

The book remains a fascinating and important read for anyone interested in the intersection of demographics and politics. Texeira and Judis identified numerous examples to back up their “demographics is destiny” manifesto, pointing out the diminished power of the political Right in places like Orange County, California. In 1988, former President George H.W. Bush won the county by 22 points. In 2000, his son, former President George W. Bush, won the county by only four points.33 In 2020, former President Donald Trump lost Orange County by nine points—a 31-point swing in as many years.34

Texeira and Judis predicted this accurately. In The Emerging Democratic Majority, they stated that “The growth of the Hispanic population has been particularly important in changing Orange County’s politics. Hispanics make up about 31 percent of Orange County’s population, but 62 percent of the forty-sixth congressional district, which includes Santa Ana, the largest city in Orange County.”35 The book included similar observations about Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado, with much of the analysis predicated on the growing Hispanic populations in key areas of those states. 

These predictions were largely accurate in predicting shifting political alignments in conjunction with an increase in the share of non-white voters. In the instances where this political shift has not occurred on the timeline that Texeira and others believed it would, they have conducted numerous interviews over the years to understand why. Their central theory is still viable, but the political shift following demographic shift happens more slowly in some regions of the United States than in others. To the degree that the radical Left recognizes this obstacle, it is not anything that the law of large numbers cannot overcome. If the influx of non-native populations has not resulted in as much of an electoral advantage for Democrats as was hoped for, bringing in more people will eventually correct that shortfall.

As progressive writer and activist Jamelle Bouie observed, the argument that non-white voters will overtake—or dare one say, replace—white voters to “set the stage for a new Democratic majority” has “become an article of faith among many progressives.”36 Bouie has contended that “If Democrats agree on anything, it’s that they will eventually be on the winning side. The white Americans who tend to vote Republican are shrinking as a percentage of the population.”37 

Longtime progressive pundit Jonathan Chait echoed this sentiment leading up to the 2012 presidential election. “The modern GOP–the party of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes—is staring down its own demographic extinction. Right-wing warnings of impending tyranny express, in hyperbolic form, well-founded dread: that conservative America will soon come to be dominated, in a semi-permanent fashion, by an ascendant Democratic coalition hostile to its outlook and interests.”38

James Carville, perhaps the most famous left-wing American political consultant, capitalized on the mainline Democrat belief that demographics is destiny with his 2011 book, 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. In that book, Carville echoes Texeira and Judis, writing that “According to the Census Bureau, 33 percent of children under eighteen are ethnic or racial minorities. One in five youth under eighteen is an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. Increasing diversity likely translates to further Democratic gains. In 2008, 96 percent of African-Americans and 67 percent of Latinos voted for Obama.”39

The sentiments expressed by Bouie, Chait, and Carville were pervasive during the Obama administration. At the height of the debate about the Gang of Eight amnesty bill in the aftermath of former President Obama’s reelection, the corporate media characterized the legislation as a potential “bonanza” for Democrats. “The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily,” wrote Emily Schultheis at Politico.40

Politico’s analysis pointed out that under established voting trends, the legislation would have made Florida, Nevada, and Colorado non-competitive, providing a comfortable Democrat victory for former President Obama in that cycle and further putting Republican-dominated states like Texas in play with a “pathway to citizenship – and full voting rights – for a group of undocumented residents that roughly equals the population of Ohio, the nation’s seventh-largest state.”41 The piece further described the 2013 Gang of Eight amnesty bill as a measure that “virtually guarantees millions of new Democratic voters.”42 

The bill eventually tanked in the House of Representatives later that year, but remains a stark case in point illustrating the political Left’s efforts to supplant the interests of existing citizens through the importation of millions of new potential voters. Such efforts, even in failure, reinforce the “gospel” of the political Left’s support for the prospective positive impacts of replacement theory.

Shortly after former President Obama’s reelection in November 2012, the corporate press highlighted Census data projecting that white Americans would no longer make up a majority of U.S. residents by 2043 to tout possible immigration and economic policy benefits for a “post-industrial” society dominated by majority-minority demographic dynamics.43 Particular focus was placed on Obama winning 78 percent of non-white voters under a headline emphasizing the rapid decline in America’s “white majority.”

Michelle Goldberg, a longtime progressive columnist at the New York Times, characterized the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams in almost exclusively racial terms. Employing the language of replacement, Goldberg smeared Kemp as the “candidate of aggrieved whiteness.”44 She summarized the gubernatorial race as follows, “On Saturday morning, Abrams closed by reminding the crowd of Kemp’s views on democracy. ‘He said he is concerned that if everyone eligible to vote in Georgia does so, he will lose this election,” she [Abrams] said. “Let’s prove him right.’ In a week, American voters can do to white nationalists what they fear most. Show them they’re being replaced.”45

In a 2021 article, progressive writer and former attorney Daniel Jamison doubled down on replacement as a positive development, bragging that the political Right’s traditional way of life is soon to disappear. “Steadily rising numbers of non-white voters almost everywhere else are very likely to disprove those who fear control of Congress will belong indefinitely to the older, male-dominant and white-centric right. If anything, the nation may instead see growing strength on the left as multi-ethnic governance expands.” Jamison ended his piece affirming, “Demographics are destiny.”46 

That same year, Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post opinion columnist, celebrated Census data showing declining numbers of white Americans as “fabulous news” and dutifully pressed for the need to “prevent minority White rule.”47

The Ivory Tower Against White Americans: The Academy’s Embrace of Replacement

“Europeans are simply a different breed of human. They are socialized to be aggressive people. They are taught to live by the credo, ‘survival of the fittest.’ They are raised to be racist. Caucasians make up only 10 percent of the world’s population and that small percentage of people have recessive genes. Therefore they’re facing extinction.” —Ibram H. Rogers (Ibram X. Kendi)48

Lest one assume the political Left’s embrace of demographic replacement is confined to pundits and politicos, it must be noted that the same attitude permeates academic and policy institutions across the nation. While many of these individuals would undoubtedly dispute the characterization, the reality is that progressive academics have championed the essential features of the Great Replacement Theory with zeal and fervor. 

Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, Oregon State professor Christopher Stout released The Case for Identity Politics: Polarization, Demographic Change, and Racial Appeals. Stout argues that race essentialism is critical for the advancement of progressive causes. In the foreword for Stout’s book, written by longtime black identity activist Charles V. Hamilton, it characterizes the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as something written solely for the “kin, kith, and kind of Anglo-Saxon males, who were in effect ‘the People,’ beneficiaries of this ‘more perfect union.’”49

Stout writes that the Democrat Party is the natural home for race-obsessed progressives and that that dynamic is powering progressive policies. Specifically, Stout emphasizes two issue areas instrumental in fostering the advancement of identity politics: opposing voter ID laws and advancing so-called immigration reform.

“The Democratic Party also worked to overturn policies that limited opportunities for racial/ethnic minorities. The most salient of these areas were voter identification laws and immigration reform. Democratic politicians were much more likely to speak out against voter identification laws and to vote against them in state legislatures (Hajnal, Layevardi, and Nielson 2017),” Stout writes. “Moreover, they were more vocal in their support for providing legal status to undocumented immigrants who reside in the United States. This is best exemplified by President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, which was launched in 2012 and provided protections for some undocumented immigrants.”50

Stout further argues that immigrants (presumably both legal and illegal) will play a critical role in population growth as the number of children among American citizens declines. He writes that “Between 1965 and 2010 over half of the population growth in the United States was tied to immigrants, their children, and/or their grandchildren (Passel and Rohal 2015). This trend will continue into the future. By 2065, a record number of residents in the United States, almost 1 in 5 (18 percent), will be immigrants.”51 Stout examines the declining birth rates among white Americans in the framework of replacement. “In combination, the birth-to-death ratio among whites has dropped significantly from 1999 (I.2 births to 1 death) to 2014 (I.04 births to 1 death). When this number declines below 1, replacement will no longer be occurring. The decline in the ratio of births to deaths among whites has already reached less than 1 in seventeen states, including Florida, Pennsylvania, California, and Virginia.”52 This is followed by one of many key quotes: “The decline in the white population provides other racial groups the opportunity to gain in relative size.”53 

In a joint 2016 report issued by the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for American Progress, Texeira and his new coauthors, demographer William Frey and left-wing social scientist Robert Griffin, laid out multiple scenarios in a simulation designed to predict how changing demographics would impact future presidential election cycles. In the six scenarios outlined, the only one in which Republicans were favored to win included a scenario that resulted in more white voter support for the political Right than the 2012 election baseline. The authors state that even in this scenario, the “longer-term projections once again show that shifting demographics currently favor Democrats if current race, age, and state turnout and voting proclivities continue.”54

Yet, the notion that demographic replacement will ensure a permanent Democrat or progressive majority has started to see some cracks. In 2021, Philip Elliott at TIME wrote that “It’s become something of a cliché in Washington for Democratic strategists to assert that ‘demographics are destiny.’ What they mean is that the diversifying electorate—and the shrinking role of white voters—will render Republicans incapable of sustaining power for much longer.” He goes on to caution, however, that “More broadly, Pew’s new numbers show that things aren’t changing overall as fast as Democrats might have thought.”55

Ruy Texeira himself has refined some of his previous assessments in recent years. In particular, Texiera has emphasized the progressive obsession with Critical Theory as an enduring dilemma for the future of the Democrat Party. Texeira now argues that woke dogma—oriented around race essentialism—is fracturing the prospective Democrat political coalition.56

The Reality of Replacement: It’s About Citizenship and Culture

Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority.” —Michelle Goldberg57

The current discourse around the Great Replacement Theory can be best categorized as follows: Replacement is not happening and it’s good that it is. While the political Left attempts to smear anyone concerned about the mass importation of foreign citizens and the gluttony of race essentialism in our institutions as being racist themselves, the reality is that progressives are pushing policies designed to supplant the interests of American citizens. Unchecked immigration and its consequent demographic transformation disenfranchises voters—taking the future of the country out of the deliberative political process in which current citizens can have a say in who their fellow citizens will be. 

Since January 2021, more than 7.1 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border alone—a figure that does not include “got aways” that evade U.S. Border Protection. In September 2023, there were roughly 305,000 births in the United States.58 In that same period, there were more than 341,000 illegal immigrants encountered at the U.S. border.59 Elected officials in Washington, D.C., have worked to expand legal immigration via various visa programs, passed legislation sending more money to fund Ukraine’s borders than we spend on the entirety of the United States Marine Corps,60 and sought to ensconce illegal immigration as an acceptable practice through destructive bipartisan bills that ignore the very interests of the citizens who put them in power.61

The reality is that demographic replacement is not a theory. It is indeed happening, and self-evidently so, because of the practical implementation of existing public policies and the non-enforcement of existing immigration laws. It is true that demographic replacement is not happening the way that racist alt-right identitarians claim nor in the context framed by radical neo-Marxist identitarians. It is not a replacement of white people with non-white people by merely natural demographic change, yet neither is it organized by a secret cabal of Jewish elites manipulating events from behind the scenes. The real replacement is political. It is an attack on American citizenship and American civic culture. 

While the political Left may be sincere in their anti-white racism, the outcomes they celebrate have far less to do with race than with the political orientation of the American people. In the context of U.S. domestic politics, replacement theory properly understood is perhaps best defined as “the active supplanting of individuals tethered to the American founding with individuals who are not.” It is the replacement of citizens with subjects.

Before the implementation of the welfare state began in earnest in the 1930s, America’s immigration policies were discriminatory in the most literal sense of the word, focusing heavily on populations willing to assimilate and contribute to the social fabric of the nation. Waves of immigrants endured hardship and, in some cases, even persecution and bigotry, but the immigrants of the 19th and early 20th centuries arrived in search of the vaunted American dream that hard work and freedom provide the best recipe for opportunity and success.

It is important to note that the cultural values of these immigrant groups largely comported with existing social norms and mores in the United States. Cultural compatibility remains an important component in successful historical immigration patterns. While “culture” is somewhat nebulous in the aggregate, in the American political context, cultural compatibility means an adherence to a Biblical account of the human person and a Western understanding of man’s relationship with government.

Following the Great Depression, the implementation of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which focused on government-provided “safety nets,” and the onset of World War II, the federal government and the political Left writ large adopted policies designed to more directly manage economic growth.62 Within this framework were numerous programs and efforts to centrally plan economic productivity and activity. One in particular that stands out in the mass migration context is the Bracero Program.

The Bracero Program was an agreement between the U.S. government and the Mexican government to import “temporary immigrant labor” to offset the labor shortage caused by the wars in both the Pacific and European theaters.63 It continued long past the end of World War II, and is illustrative of the ideological allure of the mass importation of non-citizens. This agreement laid the groundwork for both the government and business community to view labor outside the context of citizenship: decoupling the value of Americans building things for American companies from the value of productivity and cost savings. 

Also lost: the understood necessity of foreign citizens to assimilate into American culture.

Subjects Not Citizens: The Political Patronage of Mass Immigration

Getting right on immigration and getting behind real and enduring immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”—Center for American Progress64 

Attempts to curtail illegal immigrant access to America’s welfare leviathan have mostly been thwarted by progressives and corporatists in both parties. For example, the United States Senate has failed to curtail food stamp eligibility for illegal immigrants on multiple occasions.65 It has long been a given that illegal immigrants can tap into federal taxpayer-funded resources and programs through loopholes and lack of oversight. 

Arguably, the most important dynamic as it relates to assimilation, however, is the welfare state’s draw for foreign-born individuals seeking to enter the United States both legally and illegally. Especially as digital technology enables a globalized existence, assimilation is increasingly no longer desired by immigrants coming into the republic and it is no longer expected, demanded, or prioritized by the federal government.

American taxpayers have been fleeced to provide overly generous handouts to both citizens and non-citizens alike, blurring the distinction between the two, and anyone who notices or objects is labeled a racist by the political Left. Perhaps most disturbing is the human toll these policies are taking on American citizens. The death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier in 2015 at the hands of an illegal immigrant,66 the murder of Mollie Tibbetts in Iowa in 2018 by an illegal immigrant,67 and the recent murder of Laken Riley on the campus of the University of Georgia, also by an illegal immigrant,68 underscore the painful price that citizens are paying for policies designed to supplant their interests to facilitate the unraveling of the American founding.

This all comes as the Biden administration, in the wake of a now-public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, admitted to using its CBP One phone app to import via air travel over 320,000 illegal immigrants into the interior of the United States since late 2022.69 All paid for courtesy of the citizen taxpayers actively being harmed by this mass importation agenda. And as recently as March of 2024, every Senate Democrat voted in favor of allowing illegals to count in the census for purposes of apportionment for House seats and the Electoral College.70

Beyond federal policies to mass import and provide legal status to non-citizens, progressives at the state and local level continue to display the true purpose of this demographic replacement: watering down resistance to the progressive agenda among the American electorate.

A few key examples from around the country:

  • Washington State: Funneled nearly $340 million of COVID “relief funds” to a program that sent out $1,000 stimulus checks to illegal immigrants.71
  • Colorado: Passed a law that grants licensing permits, rent and utility subsidies, and other state benefits to illegal immigrants.72
  • California: Passed a law that expands Medicaid eligibility to all illegal immigrants at a cost of $6.5 billion annually.73 The state is also considering legislation that expands a taxpayer-backed zero down, no payment home “loan” program to illegal immigrants.74
  • Oregon: Passed a law that expands a Medicaid program for illegal immigrants, conferring eligibility for the program regardless of “immigration status.”75
  • New York City: Attempted to pass a law, which was later struck down, allowing non-citizens to vote in local New York City elections.76
  • Washington D.C.: Passed a resolution allowing non-citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.77

These initiatives fray the relationship citizens have with their government, but more distressingly, they render the concept of citizenship meaningless within the broader constitutional framework. This is critical for the success of any socialist revolution. After all, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, emphasized that citizenship to a particular nation-state should be a secondary priority to membership within the broader communist conception of the working class, hence the slogan “Workers of the world unite!”78

And this is the masked reality of the replacement occurring within the United States. If ideological proponents of open borders could only import Scandinavian socialists to achieve that goal, many would likely do so. The fact that the millions coming across the southern border are mostly from Central and South American nations and are non-white is a helpful political dynamic that allows progressives to conceal their ideological ends by labeling opponents racists. 

The challenge going forward is therefore multifaceted for concerned citizens and patriotic Americans seeking to defend their fellow citizens, neighbors, and communities from the destructive consequences of the mass importation of non-citizens. These challenges can be summed up as follows:

  1. Recognizing the Reality: Concerned citizens should recognize demographic replacement as a practical reality. This reality is evidenced by intentional efforts to import illegal immigrants through open borders policies, statutory requirements to displace American workers with foreign labor, repeated attempts at enacting amnesty to secure millions of new voters without any ties to the American constitutional order, and institutional mandates to advance Critical Theory pitting Americans against one another along racial lines.
  2. Rejecting the Racists: For too long, concerns over replacement have been dominated by fringe radicals. These radicals should be fully rejected by concerned Americans, not only because of the evils of their ideology, but also because of their fundamental mischaracterization of replacement policies and their explicit antagonism toward the uniquely American idea that all men are created equal and endowed by God with unalienable rights.
  3. Rebuking the Radicals: The progressive Left’s simultaneous adoption of practical support of demographic replacement and opposition to the Great Replacement Theory is one that cannot be tolerated. A celebration parallax in which the common fact of demographic replacement in America being either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on the source is an intentionally deceptive tactic that has successfully allowed such destructive policies to persist. 
  4. Reconstituting the Republic: Citizenship is a good and noble concept providing a unifying identity and purpose to the American people that transcends one’s race, ethnicity, or economic status. American citizens are heirs to the most transformational political revolution in human history—one that tied the value of a person to the value ascribed by his or her Creator, thereby securing the truth that fundamental freedoms are not contingent on a ruler’s edicts, but rather inherent to life itself. This truth and its benefits are protected through citizenship rooted in the constitutional order. With that understanding, citizen leaders should ensure their elected officials tether their positions and actions to defend the interests of actual citizens at all times and under all conditions. 


That’s basically the request from the racial justice Left–is that we want the white majority to go from being a majority to being a minority and like it.” —Van Jones79

Given the policies enacted and advanced by radical progressives, an agenda of demographic replacement in America is a practical reality; the Left seeks to supplant citizens with subjects and erase the ideas of the American founding with the ideas of Marxist revolutionaries. The antidote to this revolution is strict enforcement of immigration law and a reinvigoration of the concept of citizenship, rooted in the truth that Americans of all races and ethnicities are bound together by a higher calling to live out and defend the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through citizenship. As citizens of a representative republic, we have a bond of mutual responsibility with our government.

Perhaps most importantly, it is incumbent upon Americans and their elected officials to set the highest possible bar for what it means to be a citizen of this republic. Exclusivity is vital for preserving the American ideal of constitutional government, and citizenship cannot and should not be something conferred en masse, or with no regard for the fundamental political order from which citizenship derives. The peddling of racist and anti-Semitic tropes by white supremacists concerning the Great Replacement Theory has proven to be a useful tool in recent years for equally racist radical progressives. It has given the Left the luxury of perceived moral superiority, helping condition Americans to dismiss their own replacement while providing political cover to an establishment that cheers this demographic transformation. However, this cynicism can no longer mask the reality that there has been an intentional effort by progressives to supplant citizens, a people tethered to America’s founding ideals, with people from cultures and societies at odds with that understanding of man’s relationship with government. It is the replacement of citizens with subjects.

The celebration parallax around the Great Replacement Theory can no longer be tolerated. Progressives wish to actively fracture America’s founding ideals through the prism of race and to smear anyone who happens to notice. They must be confronted with the fact of replacement—it is occurring, with the full support of their political coalition as a means of achieving their destructive ideological ends. For the sake of patriotic Americans of all races, parties, and economic stations, progressive immigration policies designed to eradicate citizenship must be defeated. Americans must once more recognize that the promise that all men are created equal and endowed by God with unalienable rights is secured in the responsibilities of citizenship.


1. Brecht, Bertolt. Grimm, Reinhold (ed.). (2003) Poetry and Prose. Continuum.

2. Cuccinelli, K. (May 24, 2022). “Policy Brief: The H-1B Visa Program Harms American Workers and Should Be Repealed,” Center for Renewing America.https://americarenewing.com/issues/the-h-1b-visa-program-harms-american-workers-and-should-be-repealed/  

3. AP (May 9, 2022). “1 in 3 Fear Immigrants Want to Replace Americans to Influence Elections: Poll,” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/1-3-fear-immigrants-want-replace-americans-influence-elections-poll-rcna27997

4. Camus, Renaud. (November 10, 2018) You Will Not Replace Us! Chez l’auteur. 

5. Chaouat, B. (August 26, 2019). “The Gay French Poet Behind the Alt-Right’s Favorite Catch Phrase,” Tablet.  https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/renaud-camus-great-replacement

6. Brockell, G. (May 17, 2022). “The Father of ‘Great Replacement:’ An Ex-Socialist French Writer,” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/17/renaud-camus-great-replacement-history/ 

7. Williams, T. (November 27, 2017). “The French Origins of “You Will Not Replace Us.” The New Yorker.  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/04/the-french-origins-of-you-will-not-replace-us.

8. Wilson, J. and Flanagan, A.(May 17, 2022). The Racist ‘Great Replacement’ Theory Explained,” Southern Poverty Law Center. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/05/17/racist-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-explained

9. Jones, D. (May 16, 2022). “What is the ‘Great Replacement’ and How is it Tied to the Buffalo Shooting Suspect,” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099034094/what-is-the-great-replacement-theory

10. Singley, B. (2002) “When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories,” pg. 298 

11. Anton, M. (July 26, 2021). “That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is,” The American Mind. https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/ 

12.  Young, M. (January 9, 2024). “Renounce Calls for Decolonization in All Their Forms,” The Center for Renewing America. https://americarenewing.com/issues/primer-renounce-calls-for-decolonization-in-all-their-forms/

13. CRA Staff (May 18, 2021). “Policy Brief: A Comprehensive Overview of Critical Race Theory in America,” Center for Renewing America. https://americarenewing.com/issues/policy-brief-a-comprehensive-overview-of-critical-race-theory-in-america/ 

14. Potok, M. (August 27, 2013). “50 Years Later, Hate Violence Still Plagues the Nation,” Southern Poverty Law Center.  https://www.splcenter.org/news/2013/08/27/50-years-later-hate-violence-still-plagues-nation

15. Harvard Open Book Excerpt (September-October 2002). “Abolish the White Race,” Harvard Magazine.  https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2002/09/abolish-the-white-race-html

16. MRC TV (October 26, 2021). “Post: Rutgers Professor: White People Are Committed to Being Villains,” Twitter. https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1453141895291588610 

17. Ibid. 

18. Kendi, I. (2023). “Stamped from the Beginning,” Netflix 

19. Shaw, A. (December 12, 2020). “Flashback: Biden Praised ‘Constant,’ ‘Unrelenting’ Stream of Immigration Into US,” FOX News.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-joe-biden-constant-unrelenting-immigration

20. Trejo, S. (July 19, 2021). “Sen. Dick Durbin Admits the ‘Great Replacement’ is No Conspiracy Theory in Floor Speech,” Big League Politics.  https://bigleaguepolitics.com/sen-dick-durbin-admits-the-great-replacement-is-no-conspiracy-theory-in-floor-speech/

21. Ozimek, T. (January 10, 2024). “Controversy Erupts After New York Democrat Said Illegal Immigrants Needed for Redistricting in Resurfaced Clip,” The Epoch Times.  https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/controversy-erupts-after-new-york-democrat-said-illegal-immigrants-needed-for-redistricting-in-resurfaced-clip-5562413

22. Hall, A. (February 9, 2024). “Dem Senator Torched for Calling Illegal Migrants the ‘People We Care About Most:’ “Giving Away the Game,” FOX News. https://www.foxnews.com/media/dem-senator-torched-calling-illegal-migrants-people-care-giving-away-game 

23. Trejo, S. (July 19, 2021). “Sen. Dick Durbin Admits the ‘Great Replacement’ is No Conspiracy Theory in Floor Speech,” Big League Politics.  https://bigleaguepolitics.com/sen-dick-durbin-admits-the-great-replacement-is-no-conspiracy-theory-in-floor-speech/

24. Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government (January 30, 2024). “The Southern Border Crisis: The Constitution and the States,” House Judiciary Committee.  https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/southern-border-crisis-constitution-and-states

25. Schnell, M. (June 8, 2022). “House Democrats Pass Resolution Condemning ‘Great Replacement Theory,” The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3516262-house-democrats-pass-resolution-condemning-great-replacement-theory/ 

26. Gomez, H. (October 17, 2022). “Tim Ryan and J.D. Vance Attack Each Other Over ‘Great Replacement Theory’ in Final Ohio Senate Debate,” NBC News.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/tim-ryan-jd-vance-attack-great-replacement-theory-final-ohio-senate-de-rcna52621

27. Judis, J. and Texeira, R. (2002). “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” pg. 56

28. Ibid. pg. 38 

29. Bloomberg Government Report (July 13, 2022). “Election Demographics and Voter Turnout,” Bloomberg Government. https://about.bgov.com/brief/election-demographics-and-voter-turnout/ 

30. Judis, J. and Texeira, R. (2002). “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” pg. 56

31. Ibid. pg. 35 

32. Ibid. pg. 59 

33. Ibid. pg. 83 

34. Election Results Archives (December 3, 2020). “November 3, 2020 General Election,” Orange County Registrar’s Office.  https://ocvote.gov/data/election-results-archives

35. Judis, J. and Texeira, R. (2002). “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” pg. 85 

36. Bouie, J. (June 14, 2012). “The Democrats’ Demographic Dreams,” The American Prospect.  https://prospect.org/power/democrats-demographic-dreams/

37. Ibid. 

38. Chait, J. (February 24, 2012). “2012 or Never,” New York Magazine. https://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-chait-2012-3/  

39. Carville, J. (February 5, 2011). “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation,” pg. 35 

40. Schultheis, E. (April 23, 2013). “Immigration Reform Could Be Bonanza for Dems,” Politico.  https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-090478?hp=t1

41. Ibid. 

42. Ibid. 

43. Associated Press Report (December 12, 2012). “Census: Whites No Longer a Majority in U.S. by 2043,” CBS News.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/census-whites-no-longer-a-majority-in-us-by-2043/  

44. Goldberg, M. (October 29, 2018). “We Can Replace Them,” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html

45. Ibid.

46. Jamison, D. (April 13, 2021). “Demographics Are Destiny, and the Right’s ‘Traditional Way of Life’ Is a Goner,” The Fulcrum. https://thefulcrum.us/big-picture/demographic-change

47. Rubin, J. (August 12, 2021). “A More Diverse, More Inclusive Society,” Twitter. https://twitter.com/jrubinblogger/status/1425899248269266947?s=46&t=yoRaohotqXP0omWUE7Z7EQ 

48. Rogers (Kendi), I. (September 9, 2003). “Living with the White Race,” The Famuan.  https://www.thefamuanonline.com/2003/09/09/living-with-the-white-race/

49. Stout, C. (2020). “The Case for Identity Politics: Polarization, Demographic Change, and Racial Appeals,” pg. 6-7 

50. Ibid. pg. 39 

51. Ibid. pg. 137-138 

52. Ibid. pg. 137 

53. Ibid. pg. 137 

54. Frey, W., Texeira, R., and Griffin, R. (February 2016). “America’s Electoral Future: How Changing Demographics Could Impact Presidential Elections from 2016 to 2032,” States of Change Project.  https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SOC2016report-1.pdf

55. Elliott, P. (June 30, 2021). “Are Demographics Destiny? Maybe Not, New Pew Numbers Suggest,” TIME. https://time.com/6077158/pew-election-2020-report/ 

56. Hounshell, B. and Askarinam, L. (January 25, 2022). “Confessions of a Liberal Heretic,” The New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/ruy-teixeira-democrats.html 

57.  Goldberg, M. (October 29, 2018). “We Can Replace Them,” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/opinion/stacey-abrams-georgia-governor-election-brian-kemp.html

58. National Center for Health Statistics (February 9, 2024). “Vital Statistics Rapid Release: State and National Provisional Counts,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/provisional-tables.htm

59. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (February 9, 2024). “Nationwide Encounters,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters

60. Kika, T. (February 5, 2024). “New Bill Gives Ukraine More Money Than US Marine Corps Budget,” Newsweek.  https://www.newsweek.com/new-bill-gives-ukraine-more-money-us-marine-corps-budget-1867042 

61. Weaver, A. (February 4, 2024). “Senate Negotiators Unveil Long-Sought Border Deal,” The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4436038-senate-negotiators-unveil-long-sought-border-deal/ 

62. Rothbard, M. (1947). “Spotlight on Keynesian Economics,” The Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/spotlight-keynesian-economics

63. Meissner, D. (March 1, 2004). “U.S. Temporary Work Programs: Lessons Learned,” Migration Policy Institute.  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-temporary-worker-programs-lessons-learned

64. Wolgin, P. and Garcia, A. (April 8, 2013). “Immigration is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States,” Center for American Progress.  https://www.americanprogress.org/article/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/

65. Human Needs Reports (June 2013). “Senate Rejects Extreme Food Stamp Proposals in Farm Bill,” Coalition on Human Needs. https://www.chn.org/articles/senate-rejects-extreme-food-stamp-proposals-in-farm-bill-agreement-is-reached-to-bring-73-more-amendments-to-the-senate-floor/ 

66. Crane, E. (June 7, 2022). “Illegal Immigrant Cleared in Kate Steinle’s Death Gets Time Served for Gun Charge,” The New York Post. https://nypost.com/2022/06/07/illegal-immigrant-cleared-in-kate-steinle-death-gets-time-served-for-gun-charge/

67. AP Report (August 22, 2018). “Authorities: Mollie Tibbetts Killed by Mexican in US Illegally,” ABC 7 News.  https://abc7news.com/cristhian-rivera-christian-immigration-detainer-mollie-tibbetts-news-conference/4019048/

68. Dev, S. (February 26, 2024). “Suspect in Murder of Georgia Nursing Student Entered US Illegally, ICE Says,” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jose-ibarra-suspect-murder-georgia-nursing-student-illegal-entry-venezuela/ 

69. Bensman, T. (March 4, 2022). “Government Admission: Biden Parole Flights Create Security ‘Vulnerabilities’ at U.S. Airports,” Center for Immigration Studies. https://cis.org/Bensman/Government-Admission-Biden-Parole-Flights-Create-Security-Vulnerabilities-US-Airports 

70. Shaw, Adam. (March 9, 2024). “GOP effort to stop illegal immigrants being counted for House districts, Electoral College shot down in Senate,” Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-effort-to-stop-illegal-immigrants-being-counted-on-census-for-electoral-college-shot-down-in-senate.amp

71. Madni, B. (February 2, 2024). “Bidenomics Slush Fund Subsidizes “Undocumented” Immigration,” Economic Policy Innovation Center. https://epicforamerica.org/blog/bidenomics-slush-fund-subsidizes-undocumented-immigration/ 

72. Frank, J. (July 12, 2022). “Legal U.S. Residency No Longer Required for Colorado Benefits,” Axios. https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022/07/12/colorado-immigrants-illegal-eligible-benefits

73. Kekatos, M. (December 29, 2023). “California Becomes First State to Offer Health Insurance to All Undocumented Immigrants,” ABC News.  https://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-1st-state-offer-health-insurance-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=105986377

74. Schrupp, K. (March 4, 2024). “California Proposes Zero Down, No Payment Home ‘Loans’ for Illegal Immigrants,” The Center Square.  https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_18c63aca-da60-11ee-b591-33980fb21851.html

75. Terry, L. (July 8, 2023). “Oregon Expands Free Health Insurance to All Residents Regardless of Immigration Status,” The Oregonian. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2023/07/oregon-expands-free-health-insurance-to-all-residents-regardless-of-immigration-status.html 

76. Mays, J. (June 27, 2022). “New York City’s Noncitizen Voting Law is Struck Down,” The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/nyregion/noncitizen-voting-ruling-nyc.html   

77. Moyer, J. and Flynn, M. (May 13, 2023). “Legal Challenge Filed Against D.C.’s Noncitizen Voting Law,” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/13/dc-noncitizen-voting-lawsuit/ 

78. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848). “The Communist Manifesto,” Section 4 

79. Hochman, N. (December 7, 2023). “Post: Van Jones in February 2021,” Twitter.  https://twitter.com/njhochman/status/1732891864368582729