In Part 1 of this series, published in Immigration Daily on December 23, I examined some of the programs that the world's two largest single country magnets for skilled and professional immigrants, the US and Russia, have in place to attract highly educated and productive specialty immigrants from diverse parts of the world, not just Europe, which used to be their main sources of immigration in the non-so-distant past.

I also mentioned that while official government policy in both countries, (as well as the consensus of private organizations with expertise in immigration policy) is that immigration by skilled, educated professionals, especially in fields such as engineering, finance and computer science, is beneficial for the receiving country's economy and society, both countries have a vocal and influential coterie of nay-sayers who, evidently , believe that race and skin color (euphemistically termed "national origin" - as in America's "Nordics"-only Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924) is a more important factor in choosing a country's immigrants than education, skills or merit.

Let us look at Russia first.

A February 17, 2013 article by Igor Artemov on an avowedly white "identity" website called The Occidental Observer is strongly critical of Russia's President Vladimir Putin for opening up Russia to immigration by skilled and professional workers from Central Asia, not only from Europe. See:

Putin's view of Russia's national future. Migration policy and residence registration.

Artemov writes:

"Yet what is President Putin doing? In the Concept [Putin's 2012 official immigration proposal] he endorses there is almost nothing about assisting the compatriots [to return to Russia from neighboring countries where they live].
On contrary, [sic] 'the Concept' obviously proposes to compensate the decline, or speaking in plain language, the dying out of the population of our country, not by means of repatriation of - the people of former USSR who are ethnically and culturally related to us - but by means of migration to Russia of alien, non-indigenous peoples of [the] Near Abroad." (Emphasis is in the original).

And just in case there is anyone who doesn't catch on to Artemov's point, he shares the following with us:

"Every Russian is perfectly aware that migrants from Central Asia and Transcaucasia as well as from China are mostly extremely unqualified. So far nobody was able to name any notable Tajik scientist or an Azeri engineer."

While Vladimir Putin has been blamed for many things, see:


having Europeans only immigration views does not appear to be among them. In fact, Putin has been accused of allegedly being more likely to put Russian white nationalists in jail than he is to seek out their advice on immigration policy. See:

Igor Artemov:

In Russia, Ten Years in Jail for "Extremist" Speech

In contrast, even though some constitutional law experts have raised questions about Donald Trump's own commitment to free speech (see my December 24 post on this topic), in his administration, and in keeping with America's values of freedom of expression, someone who believes in the inherent unsuitability of non-European immigrants to be admitted to the United States is more likely to wind up as an advisor in the West Wing of the White House than to be persecuted for his opinions.

An illustration in point is the following quote from an article in Trump's recently appointed senior presidential advisor Stephen Bannon's Breitbart News by former Congressman and long-standing immigration opponent Tom Tancredo:

In a direct attack in the 1965 immigration reform law which ended some 80 years of previous legal racial discrimination in America's immigration system, including, among other notorious examples, the 1880's Chinese exclusion laws and the 1924 Johnson-Reed "Nordics"-only "national origins" immigration act, Tancredo's Breitbart News article stated:

"Unlike Hungarians, Americans have never been asked whether they wanted to transform their country through mass immigration...

When Congress voted to resume mass immigration with Sen. Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration act [which was in fact a bipartisan measure, see below], the bill's goals were misrepresented to the American people. Advocates claimed, in the words of Sen. Kennedy, the bill would not 'inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations'."


What could Bannon's Breitbart News possibly have meant by the above comment? It does not take much guesswork to figure this out. As a scholarly and detailed analysis by the Migration Immigration Source, entitled:

The Geopolitical Origins of the U.S. Immigration Act of 1965

explains (on February 5, 2015, see link below):

"The law banned discrimination in the issuance of visas based on 'race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence...

The 1965 immigration law quickly transformed the ethnic portrait of the United States."

However, just as there are voices in Russia who would like to see that country return to a "Europeans-only" immigration policy, there are voices in America who would like to return to the "Nordics-only" days of the 1924 immigration act.

One of them, the publisher of Breitbart News as mentioned above, will shortly be moving to the West Wing of the White House as the new president's top adviser.

And if Donald Trump's August 31 attack on "outmoded", "decades old" immigration laws in his Phoenix address is any indication, another opponent of the race neutral, non-discriminatory immigration laws we have had for the past helf century, which admit qualified immigrants to the US without regard to skin color or ethnicity, may soon be sitting in the Oval Office.
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been representing skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world, based purely on merit, and without regards to race, ethnicity or religion, in keeping with the laws of our country and our highest American values.

Roger's email address is