You're not thinking of the future. Each year America is confronted with some new liberal demand that would have been unthinkable just a few years before. And if you had predicted it twenty years earlier, everyone (including mainstream conservatives) would have called you a conspiracy nut or an extremist. What if you had predicted in 1956 that within twenty years we'd have wholesale abortion-on-demand, including for minors without parental notice? Or if you'd told people in 1988 that by 2008 we'd be close to having same-sex "marriage" foisted upon us. Or that nearly 100 U.S. cities would have declared themselves sanctuaries for the 12 or 20 million people illegally in our nation?
Liberalism isn't anything normal. It isn't like conservatism, which is wedded to tradition and has an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" worldview. Liberalism is utopian and messianic. There will never be a point where liberals say, "we've gone far enough, society is now liberal enough to satisfy us." Every change in their direction simply triggers a demand for another change in their direction. Sometimes they run up against things that slow them down (such as the Constitution) but they eventually chip away at it. Once the nation has changed enough demographically the constitutional barriers to trashing our sovereignty won't mean a thing.
If he spoke to the NAACP would that mean McCain supported reparations?
Well, McCain originally opposed the MLK holiday but now he favors it. He won't lift a finger against affirmative action, that's for sure. The reparations demand is still fairly young. We'll need some more demographic change for it to pass, but pass it eventually will unless things are turned around. As for La Raza, we know McCain supports amnesty and that his Hispanic outreach director is Juan Hernandez. Not very promising.
Cart before the horse.
Well, you have a point here. But let's look at Europe as an example. Back in the sixties & seventies, the sexual revolution and zero population growth movements spread through those nations. Birthrates plunged. Everyone was then told that to maintain the lavish socialist benefit plans, they'd need more workers. Since not enough Europeans had been born, they imported them from other lands.
This sort of dynamic is symbiotic. Few births lead to more immigrants. More immigrants make the white population discouraged so that they continue to not reproduce. So more immigrants are brought in. It's a cycle that repeats itself endlessly. Whether liberals discouraged whites from giving birth as an excuse to bring in liberal-voting immigrants, or whether the immigrants create such a burden on whites in terms of crime and finances that they can't afford kids, the end result is the same. More immigrants and a demographic transformation of the society into a non-Western jurisdiction.
BTW, immigrants have had a huge negative impact on black Americans, yet (surprise!) black political leaders want to flood the country with still more immigrants. What this should tell you is that the political class in our country truly wants to change America into something totally beyond recognition. Granted, it'll take them a good many years to pull it off, but they will pull it off as long as people pretend that liberals are just well-meaning people who love our country and our heritage but just have a few silly ideas.
But he never imagined that the restrictive quotas in his bill coupled with an unprecedented demographic morbidity among white Americans would create conditions would create a perfect economic incentive for mass illegal immigration. If Kennedy's career illustrates anything, it illustrates his complete ignorance of basic economics.
Well, if I recall correctly the main opposition to the 1965 act came from Southern Democrats who feared the bill would change our demographics, and the bill's proponents swore that it would not.
BTW, I enjoy debating you. You have an interesting mix of views on issues.
You're right, but they rarely challenge the actual structure of our Constitutional order - and when they do, they have trouble getting away with it. Videlicet Roosevelt's attempt to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices, the attempt to replace the XIVth Amendment with the ERA, the attempt to abolish the electoral college, etc.
So far, there has only been one significant structural change: the direct election of the Senate.
Few births lead to more immigrants. More immigrants make the white population discouraged so that they continue to not reproduce. So more immigrants are brought in. It's a cycle that repeats itself endlessly.
It is completely counterintuitive to reproduce less when another group you are not overly excited about reproduces more. The presence of immigrants does not inspire natives to cease reproduction - the selfishness of the natives does.
Many native born Americans have done the cupiditous math and decided that a nicer home in a swanky neighborhood and a nicer car and nicer clothes are worth more than a second child, or even a first.
Well, if I recall correctly the main opposition to the 1965 act came from Southern Democrats who feared the bill would change our demographics, and the bill's proponents swore that it would not.
The Southerners argued, correctly, that family reunification would increase the percentage of ethnic minorities in the US because most white Americans - especially those in the Southern states - had zero immediate family members in the Old Country.
Billy Joe McCuttrick of Macon, Georgia's ancestors came to America from Belfast in 1819 - any relatives he had in the old country in 1965 were fourth cousins at the closest. Anthony Chin of San Francisco's father came from Hong Kong in 1910 and in 1965 he still had uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces etc. in Hong Kong.
The Dixiecrats were not arguing or even imagining that millions of illegal immigrants would come strolling over the border in the 1980s and 90s - they were arguing that non-white Americans of recent vintage would legally import large, extended families from abroad under the bill.
Right back atcha.