Pretending immigration isn't an issue

Townhall.com ^ | August 20, 2002 | Phyllis Schlafly

[WRhine]

The talk is open; we're not voting for Jorge in 2004 - out of outrage over his stance on immigration.

I'm glad to hear this. That the RNC no longer asks for opinions on immigration in their surveys shows how they are feeling the heat from their constituents. Yet, if I got King George II right, he would rather go down in flames in 2004 and take the party with him than put America's sovereignty first. Just an observation that I hope proves wrong.

[FreedomFriend]

Buchanan is a true patriot. He speaks with common sense in the areas of immigration, trade, abortion, as well as many others. He's far more Pro-American than Bush, a globalist guy.

[FreedomFriend]

Yes, the head of the GOP has many traitors to the American cause.

[FreedomFriend]

To me, it is common sense. All you have to do is to look at trends and where we are heading. If one is to do this, the measures I listed stand out as the sanity that they are. How could anyone not support those measures?

[FreedomFriend]

Yeah, you're probably right. All you have to do is look at their impotency on the real issues and everything is clear.

Newspapers are referring to LaRaza as a Hispanic rights group. They're giving them legitimacy, and politicians are following right in line. Newspapers are giving the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Southern Heritage, and anti-traditonal values organization, words of encouragement. They make is so that the SPLC is given the say of who is a hate group. Such groups include traditional values organizations, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, many Patriotic organizations. It's quite sad that the insane are being treated as the morally superior. I suppose that's what happens when the patients rule the insane asylum.

[FreedomFriend]

I wouldn't doubt if it gets passed.

[Sabertooth]

At current rates, with zero immigration, it would take at least 125-200 years for whites to be a minority in this country. If the U.S. went back to a predominately European immigration policy, then whites would likely never be the minority.

With ethnic intermarriage growing ever more common, the entire matter of ethnic distribution is a sideshow. It's only worth noting to the extent that anti-Caucasian bias reveals the racism of the Left.

My daughter is half Philippino, and has simply been raised to be an American.

Also, your view of ethnic trends of the next 125-200 years is based on the previous paradigm that has endured throughout human history to this day. Two things are permanently changing that paradigm. The first is increased mobility of human populations, worldwide. But that simply accelerates an ongoing trend.

The second is a technological development that is going to change all of our perspectives on ethnicity within two or three generations: gene-splicing and the inclusion of the DNA of animals into the human genome. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will face the dilemma of how to co-exist on with these new... humans(?).

If folks feel comfortable with a hidden dog gene here or frog gene there, how about a person with genetically engineered cat-eyes, with vertical pupils and third eyelids? The technology to make that happen will be available in a decade or two.

The lesson of WMD proliferation is that technological genies excape from the lamps, and will be aquired by unthinking and unethical people.

Forget about ethnicity, that's not the issue. It diverts our energies and provides ammunition for demagoguery to our opponents. The issues are assimilation to our language and culture (inseperable), and the erosion of American sovereignty and rule of law with respect to Illegal Aliens.

[Sabertooth]

You rarely see minorities being "forced out", and when they are, in the case of gentrification, politicians scream.

Ask the blacks still left in Compton, California about what the Illegals have done there in the last 20 years.

[FreedomFriend]

I should have restated that as to read, "You rarely see minorities being forced out by whites, and when they are, in the case of gentrification, politicians scream".

[FreedomFriend]

While I agree that assimilation is key, I do see a form of group politics that has allowed bickering to continue. It is the main reason that blacks and "Hispanics" flock to the Democrat Party, because many believe the spin that the GOP is for the rich white guy.

With this being said, I do think that it is a priority to solidify relationships with already existing minorities in the country. Thus, we don't need to admit more individuals and create ever more voters for the Democratic machine, as well as more followers of the socialists. We also don't need more people talking about how they're going to vote against the "white man" and his party.

I've stated previously that I believe that relationships between whites and blacks are getting better. Thus, why would you want to import more individuals who will defeat the purpose.

As far as the animal gene stuff goes, I don't think that it will take on. To me, you'd be considered a freak. Furthermore, I don't know if its possible because you're dealing with totally different species.

[Sabertooth]

I should have restated that as to read, "You rarely see minorities being forced out by whites, and when they are, in the case of gentrification, politicians scream".

True, unless the gentrifiers are gay white men.

[WRhine]

The Left was never satisfied with just one party - we are now observing the systematic takeover of the Republican Party as well. The big difference now is that conservatives have nowhere to go.

You are right on the mark. Some serious thought should be given to starting a new Conservative Party. The Republican Party has completely sold out Middle America and our sovereignty as a nation to boot. For the foreseeable future, this party is beyond redemption.

[Sabertooth]

Some serious thought should be given to starting a new Conservative Party. The Republican Party has completely sold out Middle America and our sovereignty as a nation to boot.

Other than the occasional protest vote, third parties are a waste of energy in the American electoral system. The reasons they never fluorish are based on intrinsic, Constitutional elements of election law. Among the items necessary to facilitate viable third parties in America would be Constitutional Amendments disposing of the Electoral College and the institution of a parliament. Not gonna happen.

As difficult as it will be, it will take far less energy to bend the GOP to our will than would be spent wasting time on third party efforts.

I'm not suggesting allowing the RNC to take your vote for granted, but if you bolt the party outright, you have no voice at all.

Look at Buchanan.

[Mo1]

Thanks for the ping .. but I got one heck of a headache today and I'm not sure if I want to make it worse ..

[WRhine]

Let's face the facts.

The problem is not immigration.

The problem is non-European immigration.

I agree though some serious thought should be given to exactly how great of a population we, the American Citizens, want in this country. IMO, we already are over-populated. That said, the mass importation of 3rd World immigrants, legal and illegal, will undoubtedly result in the balkanization of America--and at current immigration rates that day is not far off. When that happens, the days of freedom, social stability and prosperity will be a distant memory.

[FreedomFriend]

How true.

[Orion]

. For us to keep our "white America" we have only 2 options. Start having kids again, or ethnic cleansing. Now, which do you advocate?

When did I say anything about protecting "white America?"

America can assimilate brown-skinned individuals in small numbers, but not a wholesale invasion from the entire third world.

As to your knee-jerk "white America"...

Perhaps if I was not providing for an entire family of brown-skinned immigrants, through my taxes, I would have more children. Perhaps if we dumped the "anchor baby" concept and the concept of citizenship is granted based upon being born here, and the fact that most of the immigrants children are subsidized by gov't welfare, they would not have so many. Perhaps if we opened our immigration to the ratios of the races that presently live here (or lived here in '65), we would not have that problem.

No ethnic cleansing on my part. I will stand back and wait for "la raza" to cleanse the country (ala Zimbabwe). That is how I predict I will die...the swarthy masses rising up against the "oppressive" whites and making Central Europe in the 1940s look like a tune-up.

[FreedomFriend]

Good response, and how about that, a Texan is concerned.

[Orion]

100% correct. The Dems of 40 years ago are WAY more conservative than the GOP of today. The sprint to the left by the GOP is why we are doomed as a nation. The truth has no venue for implementation.

[FreedomFriend]

The problem with social security is that it will take more and more money (tax dollars) to keep it afloat, as it became another form of government programs and socialism the moment the government started dipping into individual savings.

As it now stands, admitting more "immigrants" to prop up social security may work for a generation, but after that you're going to need more to prop up that generation. However, given the division and group politics, along with added costs minus benefits of many newcomers, any gains in social security will be wiped out to this fact. Meanwhile, America will become balkanized, bankrupted, and its culture will be lost. We'll be left as on the scrappile of failed nations.

It is these reasons why I believe that social security needs to be phased out, with everyone receiving all their money paid into the system. Meanwhile, government will be cut and new workforce entrants will forgo the SS system and will instead be encouraged to put their money into some form of savings account.