The United States: As you know, it is a systemically racist, white supremacist hellhole. It is filled with structures and barriers intended to oppress people of color and make them suffer. Or at least, you know those things if you read the usual sources from left-wing institutions and journalists. I’ll give you several examples in a moment.

But then, how to explain the undeniable fact that millions of people of color are enduring almost unimaginable hardships every day in the effort to reach and then gain entry to this hellhole.

The most recent example is on the front page of today’s New York Times. The headline is “Blinken Seeks Mexico’s Help To Slow Surge”; but the accompanying photo — occupying most of the front page above the fold — is particularly revealing. A caravan of thousands of people is shown surging forward toward the U.S. border, with nearly every single visible face having a noticeably dark complexion.

For the last several centuries, and increasingly so in recent years, millions of people have moved from one country to another. In the language of the Left, many of those people are referred to by the term “migrants,” while others get the label “settlers,” or even worse, “settler colonialists.”

Do you know the difference? Clearly, people who are “migrants” are associated with only positive connotations. They are decent human beings, just struggling to better their lives. Existing populations in the recipient countries are morally obligated not only to welcome them, but to accord them all rights of pre-existing residents, including rights to hold jobs, to attend public schools, to own or rent property, and even to receive generous welfare benefits.

“Settlers,” on the other hand, are bad, while “settler colonialists” are even worse, maybe the ultimate evil. Pre-existing populations don’t have to accept them at all, and indeed, are perfectly entitled to kill them.

But how can you tell the which are which?

In preparation for my immigration debate tomorrow, I have thought to study up on the recent riots that rocked the country of France from late June through the first two weeks of July.

These riots present an object lesson in what can happen in the event of large-scale immigration of an insular group that assimilates slowly into the host population and is culturally very different.

Although these riots have certainly been mentioned in the American press, they have mostly been kept out of the main headlines here by such things as the Supreme Court decisions of June 30, the Ukraine war, the emerging presidential campaign, the Biden family scandals (in the conservative press only), the ongoing climate scam (in the liberal press only) and so forth. But in France they were very significant.

In preparation for my big Soho Forum debate a week from today, I’ve been doing some research to collect statistics relative to the subject of immigration, particularly as to the potential consequences of unlimited immigration into the U.S. Today I’ll share some of those statistics as a teaser for what you will get when you come to the debate.

The resolution for the debate is “The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease.” I have agreed to take the negative side of the resolution.

You might say that they have given me a ridiculously easy position to defend.

This is your chance to see the Manhattan Contrarian in a live debate!

On July 25, the Soho Forum will host a debate on the resolution “The U.S. should have free immigration except for those who pose a security threat or have a serious contagious disease.”

I will be taking the negative side of the debate.

We’d love to have a big attendance for this event.