Demographics will weaken America’s militaristic approach to the world. Much of Bush’s support comes from white fundamentalist Christian men. This, in my opinion, is a social group that is fighting a rearguard battle against the growing social power of women, immigrants and other religions. It is also fighting against secularism, such as the teaching of modern biology and evolutionary theory.
The religious right’s backward – looking agenda – and the Manichaean worldview that underlies it – is doomed. The US Census Bureau recently found that by 2050, the non-Hispanic white population of the US is likely to be only half of the total US population, down from 69 per cent currently. By 2050, 24 per cent of the population will be Hispanic, 14 per cent will be African-American, and 8 per cent Asian.
The US will look more like the world, especially Latin America.
Don't think that because the WSJ (in that hotbed of America-hate, New York) calls itself conservative (or does it?) that it isn't chocked full of primary haters who gloat over the destruction of a people they loathe. That is part of reason for their support of unlimited immigration, but the main reason is fear of political incorrectness. The denizens of the WSJ are "Business Conservatives", the dominant type of conservative these days, they are only interested in making money for themselves, in living in upper-class or upper-middle class luxury, and in ensuring their children are members of the same pampered classes, and they don't really have any strong principles, certainly not conservative principles, beyond that. Opposing immigration would bring the wrath of the establishment and the charge of racism and if you just want to make money it's best to lay low and not antagonize the vicious beast.
What will happen in the future when America has, as Professor Sachs predicts above, a population and a government like, say, Argentina or Brazil? Will that be "good for the economy"? (And is "good for the economy" the only criterion for how a nation should by run?) The editors at the Wall Street Journal and other believers in "Economic Man" (a belief they share with Marxists) never answer that question because to insinuate that an America with a non-white majority will be any different than historical America, to imply that people are anything other than interchangeable economic units, will be called racism by the establishment. Immigration isn't contentious. There is hardly a major politician who is prominently against it. The leftists who run the medias are for it and they will crucify any politician who comes out against it as a "xenophobe" and racist, so none do. That is how "democracy" works in the modern age of television. Immigration and the shape of the society it will produce is a vital question that should be subjected to vigorous debate, but that debate has been declared to be forbidden by cultural dictators at the top.
The power of this oligarchy is evident when opponents of mass-immigration, like the author of this piece, are reduced to arguing that the main problems with the present immigration policy is that it might let in terrorists and is corrosive to the rule of law. Was immigration not an issue before the present terrorist alarms and will it cease to be an issue if those threats subside? No, the main issue with immigration is cultural, that a nation is its people on its land and when you replace the people on a land then the nation as it has been known ceases to exist. When you get to the point when no one will stand up and plead that the continuing historical existence of their culture is a good thing you are already dead as a nation. That the opponents of immigration have to fall back on trivial arguments about homeland security is indicative of their political impotence.
Can you cite the Columbia professor?
It will be more like Zimbabwe than Brazil. The Left in this country frames the issues around race and that won't be a genie that will fit back in the bottle. And there will be no real conservative movement till the Left's trump card is neutralized.