Replies

Well you've done a good job of distorting what I've said, without actually addressing what I specifically said. I'll try to clarify. I want immigration levels into the United States REDUCED. I've never called for a permanent ban on immigration. I've never said we should close the doors forevermore. Likewise, that is exactly the same message being sent by the majority of Americans when they consistently tell pollsters that they want legal immigration levels reduced. Reduced. Not cut off completely forever. There is a difference, you know. So I'm not worried about sending a message of 'we don't want you here' because that's not what I've said. But to put in such terms, you could say that 'I(We) don't want continued annual arrivals of about one million legal immigrants in addition to hundreds of thousands of illegal ones.' But to the more general area of sensitivies, I'll admit that I'm more concerned with the feelings of American citizens than that of potential ones.

As to race: I would be oppossed to mass immigration no matter where it came from. You can believe that or not. But the fact is that most immigrants are non-white, and whether you like it or not that has serious implications. (It reminds of the frenzy some got into when Patrick Buchanan made the common sense observation that the US could more easily assimilate a million British than a million Zulus). Specifically we have to consider the matter of racial preferences (or aff action if you prefer that euphemism). Fact - Racial preferences exist over much of the country. Fact - Most immigrants are non-white, and as such are eligible for racial preferences, though they were never intended for them.

Just think about this. When aff action began it was to redress past institutional discrimination against black Americans and American Indians. Now, I would still oppose them, seeing as how they would still be wrong on principle because they penalize white Americans--the overwhelming majority of which come from poor, working, or middle class backgrounds. But if they were solely for black Americans and American Indians then it would at least be limited to no more than about 14 or 15 percent of the country. But as you probably know, immigration has made the country much more mixed. Hispanics now account for about 15% of our population,and that share is growing fast. And most of them now and in the future will be eligible for racial preferences. And you'll probably notice that the justification for aff actions has changed too. It used to be that the whole 'redress past wrongs' argument was used. But the left knew that was unlikely to stand up in the courts, and they knew that it simply didn't apply to all the new minorities who have no history of institutional discrimination in this country. So what did they do? They invented this whole idea that diversity is such a good thing, such a strengthening thing that achieving it justifies racial preferences. It justifies discrimination against white Americans. That is the inescapable conclusion from the recent Sup Court decision.

Now did immigrants create aff action? No they didn't. But they will benefit from it. And continued mass immigration from 3rd world countries will only make us more 'diverse', thus making the aff action lobby stronger, and thus making it highly unlikely that there will ever be a time when some sort of preference is not needed to achieve diversity. Now maybe you think that is a good thing. Mabye you believe in the empty platitude about 'diversity being our greatest strength.' Personally I don't think that platitudes are something on which to base policy. And I make no apologies for caring about white people. I don't think that the presence of a white student on a college campus is less valuable than that of a non-white student of lesser merit. I don't think achieving diversity justifies discriminating against white people who, again, mostly hail from poor to modest back grounds. In other words they don't have life handed to them on a silver platter. That's why I have no problem with economic preferences; because they can help poor blacks, poor hispanics, poor asians, poor Indians, and yes, even poor white people.

And another thing that makes race relevant is the triumph of multiculturalism, which of course preaches everything but assimilation. Again, immigrants did not create multiculturalism, but their presence strenghthens it by enlarging the pool of people that the preachers of it have to preach to. And while the idea of Mexican nationalism may be some fringe, loony movement right now, whose to say what will happen 50 yrs from now when the Southwest is mostly MEXICAN american. Maybe they will assimilate just as succesffuly as the Irish, Italians, and Germans did. I hope so. But the fact that those white immigrants were coming into an already mostly white nation certainly helped. Wishing that race doens't matter won't make it so. And I don't think it is conservative whites who are making it matter these days.

As to the electability of someone proposing reduction: Again, immigration reduction the mainstream, majority view according to most polls. Various polls have also shown that the percentage of Hispanincs in favor of reduction to equal or exceed the share of them that the GOP usually gets; so it would be unlikely to drive them away. Needless to say, the percentage of blacks in favor of reduction is much greater than the share that vote Republican. So it could be a huge political winner, even if it only increased the GOP share of the white vote. Now no matter how nicely one would put such a position, no matter what lengths they went to establish their non-racist motives; they will still be called racists, and xenophobes by the left and radical ethnic interest groups like La Raza. So what? Must debate be suppressed by these charlatans? Must the majority will be held captive to bogus charges like these? Personally I believe that a candidate who articulately put for a call for reduction and who responded to these inevitable, but bogus charges with a mixture of indifference and aggressiveness would be a welcome breath of fresh air to most voters.

As to VDARE and Sam Francis: Yes, I'm familiar with both. Weren't they banned for pointing out the obvious; that most GOP voters are white, and that the GOP should try and increase their share of the white vote? But anyway, forget VDARE and Francis. You don't need them to see that there is strong case to be made for immigration reduction, and you don't need them to see that there are racial implications to current immigration policy.

As to my expectations of immigrants: I don't doubt that most immigrants are good people. I don't doubt that most come here to work hard and better their lives. But who is going to turn down a free meal? They may not come for welfare and racial preferences, but do you really think they will say no to them when offered? I think not? And again it should be obvious that the more customers of a policy that exists, the harder it will be to eliminate the program(s). So really, why would they be interested in helping solve such problems when they are not problems to them at all, but are in fact bonuses of life in America? Immigration policy should be set based on the desires and interests of Americans first and foremost. Whether or not its beneficial to others is irrelevant.

As to reaching out and gaining immigrants support: I wholeheartedly agree that the GOP should actively reach out to Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, and yes, even disillusioned Whites. But they should do it with conservative principles. That would probably result in about 25 to 35% of the Hispanic community as a base. I don't think that conservative positions that enjoy mainstream, majority support (like imm reduction and abolishing preferences) should be abandoned in order to get the vote of people not inclined to vote for you in the first place. I think the idea that Hispanics are 'natural conservives' is bogus. The reasons cited for it are less than convincing; such as the fact that they are hard working and are Catholics. Many people are hard working on any level of the political spectrum, and it took the GOP decades to win a majority of the white Catholic vote.

So yes, I believe the mass immigration induced demographic changes are bad for the GOP, and good the Dems. I think the best bet is to reduce immigration, thus lessening this trend, and making assimilation more possible, in addition to all the other reasons for reduction. Remember, their was a reduction in the early 1920s that lasted for over 40 yrs. Do you doubt that contributed significantly to assimilating all those Germans, Irish, and Italians? I think its common sense fact.

I like the WSJ too, when it comes to tax cuts. But on the issue of immigration they are hopeless, not because I disagree with them, but rather because they will not allow any dissent on this issue on their pages, and because they will take left-wing style pot shots at supporters of reduction, and because they will print obvious whoppers like George Melloan recently did when he stated that current immigrants are more likely to be skilled professionals than not. That today's immigrants are mostly unskilled and come mostly through family reunification is undeniable.