Amnesty Boosts GOP Electoral Chances
False Assumption: Republicans can win presidential elections by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants and relying on increased Hispanic voter volume to offset lost white support.
Written by FARAgent on February 10, 2026
In late 2000, after George W. Bush's narrow Electoral College win, establishment strategists like Karl Rove insisted the GOP path to reliable victories lay in amnesty for illegal aliens and other immigration boosts. They claimed Republicans would lose some white votes but gain more from the sheer volume of new immigrant voters, especially Hispanics. Sailer challenged this in a VDARE column, showing Bush could have won a landslide by gaining just 3 percent more of the white vote, as Hispanic votes were concentrated in non-competitive states like California and Texas.
Over the next decades, the bipartisan consensus pushed immigration expansion, warning against Pete Wilson's 1994 success in California by opposing illegal immigration subsidies. California Republicans collapsed into minority status, and Democrats aimed for one-party rule nationwide by juicing votes via immigration while stoking anti-white animus. Marantz's 2019 book portrayed Sailer's skepticism as dangerous 'intellectualized white nationalism' thriving online without gatekeepers like William F. Buckley.
Today, growing evidence from Donald Trump's wins by appealing to white working-class voters without amnesty shows the old strategy's flaws. Critics highlight California's one-party dominance as a warning, yet establishment voices still promote immigration as electoral strength amid contested expert views on GOP viability.
People Involved
- In the early 2000s, Karl Rove served as George W. Bush's chief strategist. He championed amnesty and increased immigration as the Republican route to electoral success. Rove argued that the volume of new Hispanic voters would compensate for any losses among white voters. He promoted this view in good faith, aligning with the establishment's consensus. [1]
- Meanwhile, Pete Wilson offered a counterexample in California. As the Republican governor in 1994, he campaigned against subsidizing illegal immigration. He turned a twenty-point deficit into a fifteen-point victory. Wilson stood as an early warning against the immigration strategy, though few heeded it at the time. [1]
- Steve Sailer, an opinion columnist, issued his own cautions in 2000. He urged the GOP to prioritize white vote share over reliance on immigration. Sailer's analysis foresaw one-party Democratic dominance in places like California and Chicago. [1]
- Years later, Andrew Marantz, a writer for The New Yorker, framed Sailer's concept of citizenism as intellectualized white nationalism. Marantz suggested it was designed for viral spread online. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (4)
“As Karl Rove’s Republican Brain Trust, egged on by their Democratic and media friends, repeatedly explained: Sure, the GOP would lose votes with every immigrant let in, but the Republicans would make up for it on volume.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“Anyway, the Establishment’s point was that you wouldn’t want to be like California Republican governor Pete Wilson in 1994 (who came from twenty points behind in the polls to win by fifteen by campaigning against subsidizing illegal immigration) and actually win, now, would you?”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“A dozen years earlier, Steve Sailer, a prolific opinion columnist with a small but passionate online audience, had reached the opposite conclusion.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“And Sailer’s citizenism—more colloquially known as intellectualized white nationalism—was just such a meme.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
Organizations Involved
The Republican establishment, guided by figures like Karl Rove, upheld the consensus on boosting immigration. They warned party members against pursuing restrictionist policies, citing supposed electoral risks like those associated with Pete Wilson's campaign. This stance helped sustain the idea within GOP circles for years. [1] The New Yorker played its part in enforcing the narrative. In one instance, the magazine spiked a planned profile of Steve Sailer after he gave an unfavorable answer to a key question. Later, it featured a slanted version in Andrew Marantz's book, which portrayed Sailer as someone hijacking public discourse. These actions reflected institutional incentives to marginalize dissenting views on immigration strategy. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“As Karl Rove’s Republican Brain Trust, egged on by their Democratic and media friends, repeatedly explained”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“With the New Yorker’s profile of Curtis Yarvin out now, I am reminded that I spent several hours on the phone with New Yorker writer Andrew Marantz in 2017 (IIRC) who was writing a profile of me. But the profile never appeared in The New Yorker, only in Marantz’s 2019 book Antisocial”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
The Foundation
The assumption drew initial credibility from exit polls in the 2000 election. George W. Bush secured 54 percent of the white vote then. Analysts noted that just three more percentage points among whites could have delivered an Electoral College landslide. Hispanics, concentrated in non-swing states, offered little strategic volume. Yet projections of demographic growth made the idea seem plausible to many. [1] Another underpinning came from misinterpretations of citizenism. This concept, as articulated by Steve Sailer, prioritized fellow citizens over foreigners, regardless of race. It drew from the Constitution's Preamble. Critics misread it as racial preference, especially when it rejected certain diversity narratives. This led to a sub-belief equating citizenism with white nationalism. Growing evidence suggests these foundations were flawed, though the debate continues. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Citing exit-poll data, he demonstrated that if Bush had increased his share of the white vote by just 3 percent—if 57 percent of white Americans had voted for him, rather than 54 percent—he would have won in a landslide.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“Citizenism calls upon Americans to favor the well-being, even at some cost to ourselves, of our current fellow citizens over that of foreigners and internal factions. Among American citizens, it calls for individuals to be treated equally by the state, no matter what their race.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
How It Spread
The idea spread through media channels and alliances with Democrats. Outlets and Democratic figures encouraged Karl Rove's team to embrace immigration volume as the GOP's winning strategy. They depicted restrictionists, such as Pete Wilson, as sure electoral losers. This framing helped embed the assumption in political discourse. [1] Online platforms shifted the dynamic later on. Sites like Twitter and Reddit enabled ideas from voices like Steve Sailer to circulate freely. Without traditional gatekeepers in the mold of William F. Buckley, these platforms amplified emotional appeals over factual analysis, according to Andrew Marantz. Such spread increasingly challenged the consensus, though not without resistance. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“As Karl Rove’s Republican Brain Trust, egged on by their Democratic and media friends, repeatedly explained: Sure, the GOP would lose votes with every immigrant let in, but the Republicans would make up for it on volume.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“Sailer and other far-right heretics, many of whom Buckley had banished to the fringes of the movement years earlier, now reconvened online. They built their own publications (The American Conservative, Taki’s Magazine, VDARE), and promoted them using new tools such as WordPress and Twitter and Reddit.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
Resulting Policies
After the 2000 election, Republicans pursued policies rooted in the assumption. They pushed for amnesty and other immigration expansions to court new voters. Proponents believed this would secure long-term GOP victories by offsetting white voter losses. Steve Sailer's analysis of the 2000 results had warned against such moves, highlighting their risks. [1] These efforts persisted into the following decades, shaping party platforms and legislative agendas. Growing recognition now views this approach as misguided, but the full consensus remains emerging.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Chapter ten in Antisocial is devoted to how I wouldn’t go along with the bipartisan consensus that the only way the Republicans could possibly win another presidential election was via amnesty for illegal aliens and other immigration-boosting devices.”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
Harm Caused
The strategy contributed to significant setbacks for Republicans. In California, the GOP collapsed into irrelevance under one-party Democratic rule. Chicago followed a similar path, with immigration policies aiding Democratic entrenchment. [1] Democrats leveraged these shifts to pursue permanent control in key areas. The costs included lost electoral ground and diminished party influence. Increasingly, evidence points to these harms as direct results of the flawed assumption, though some experts still debate the extent.
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“We’ve already seen what immigration has done to the two-party system in Chicago and California. The Democrats’ plan has been to achieve one-party rule by using immigration to juice their vote totals”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
Downfall
Pete Wilson's 1994 victory in California began to undermine the volume theory. By opposing subsidies for illegal immigration, he won decisively, contradicting claims that restrictionism doomed Republicans. Donald Trump's later success, appealing directly to white voters without amnesty, further exposed the strategy's weaknesses. [1] The term citizenism, promoted for fifteen years by Steve Sailer, failed to gain traction. This lack of spread challenged Andrew Marantz's assertion that it represented viral white nationalism. Growing evidence suggests the assumption was fundamentally flawed, leading to its gradual erosion, even as the debate lingers. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Pete Wilson in 1994 (who came from twenty points behind in the polls to win by fifteen by campaigning against subsidizing illegal immigration)”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
“In the fifteen years I’ve been promoting citizenism, it has barely had any impact. Do an online search of the word and see. By the way, Substack’s spellchecker highlights my word “citizenism” as not being a real word”— Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorker
Sources
-
[1]
Why I Wasn't Profiled in The New Yorkerprimary_source