Selwyn Duke
What conservatives and the GOP dare not say about immigration
By Selwyn Duke
In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time. She writes that if we fail at halting it, "the country will be changed permanently." She continues:
Question: Do you really think the demographic earthquake that turned the Golden State blue was mainly the result of illegal migration?
Or do you think that the legal variety might have had something to do with it?
There certainly are a few differences between legal immigration and illegal migration. For instance, we can't know if someone sneaking into our country is a criminal, a terrorist or is carrying a disease. But the reality is that in most respects illegal migration is not a separate and distinct problem.
It is an exacerbation of the problem.
Because demographically speaking, legal immigration and illegal migration are virtually identical. Most all illegal migrants hail from the Third World and Asia, and — owing to the Immigration Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy's handiwork) — 85 percent of legal immigrants do as well.
In other words, yes, adding illegal migrants into the mix will help the statists take their California dreamin' nationwide more quickly, but it will happen regardless unless we change our suicidal immigration model. So it really doesn't matter if we "capitulate" on illegal migration or not, because we capitulated on the legalized version of it a long time ago. Now we're only deciding whether Western civilization in the U.S. will get a death by 100 demographic cuts or 1000.
To be fair, Ann Coulter at least made passing mention of this reality when she slipped into her piece that "Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate [emphasis added]...." Yet with the exception of Pat Buchanan, yours truly and a few others, this is an area where you're more likely to hear the truth from leftist commentators — when they're licking their chops over how successful they've been at importing their voters. Just consider, for instance, a 2011 NPR piece in which Mara Liasson cites a study by Ruy Teixeira at liberal feel tank Center for American Progress and writes:
And 2032 and 2042? Well, Orwell's calling.
The fact is that upon being naturalized, our modern-day immigrants generally vote Democrat by wide margins — irrespective of whether upon arrival they were labeled legal or illegal.
And this isn't hard to understand. Would you expect a devout Muslim to relinquish his faith upon setting foot on American terra firma? Would you suppose that mere passage across a border could magically transform a committed communist into a fan of free markets? My point is that ideology is much like religion: It is something deep-seated. It becomes part of a person's self-image and gives his life meaning. And whether or not America is still the land of the free, it's certainly not the land of the free from harsh realities.
And the reality is this: Most of today's immigrants' native lands have socialist-type governments because their peoples support socialist politicians. This is why Democrats import them: so these new arrivals can support socialist politicians here. They're casting the votes Americans won't cast.
Unfortunately, though, the closest we come to discussing this is when statists write banal election-analysis pieces. Otherwise, immigration is framed as purely an economic issue. Are immigrants supplanting Americans or merely doing jobs natives won't? Are they contributing more in taxes than they use in services? In a nutshell, we just argue about money.
But what does it profit a nation to absorb the world but to lose its soul?
The fact is that the immigration debate is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of civilization we're going to be. For the people make the culture — not the other way around — and the culture makes the government. In just the way that the Islamic invasion of Egypt in the seventh century turned it into a Muslim and Arab land when it had been neither, if you replace America's population with a Mexican or Muslim one, you no longer have a Western civilization. You have Mexico Norte or Iran West.
It's the culture, stupid.
But don't expect a serious discussion about this anytime soon. For we are in the grip of Immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. It really is one of the most effective brainwashing con-jobs in history: Statists have made talk of what ensures their ultimate victory taboo. And Americans have been conditioned to accept as axiomatic a policy that guarantees the destruction of Western civilization in the U.S.
So if to you immigration is just a matter workers and labor costs, hospitals and services, and dollars and cents, then, hey, pesos and dinars can fill a bank account just as well. But if you're concerned about the entire country having a Golden State electorate and San Francisco values, you cannot separate legal immigration from illegal migration. It's all or nothing.
To only argue against amnesty is to fight for a half-measure — one that, ultimately, will still leave your children America dreamin' on a California day.
© Selwyn Duke
January 7, 2012
In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time. She writes that if we fail at halting it, "the country will be changed permanently." She continues:
-
Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.
But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.
-
[W]e ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.
Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore.
...If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives — one pro-life and one pro-choice — can't win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it's buenas noches, muchachos.
Question: Do you really think the demographic earthquake that turned the Golden State blue was mainly the result of illegal migration?
Or do you think that the legal variety might have had something to do with it?
There certainly are a few differences between legal immigration and illegal migration. For instance, we can't know if someone sneaking into our country is a criminal, a terrorist or is carrying a disease. But the reality is that in most respects illegal migration is not a separate and distinct problem.
It is an exacerbation of the problem.
Because demographically speaking, legal immigration and illegal migration are virtually identical. Most all illegal migrants hail from the Third World and Asia, and — owing to the Immigration Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy's handiwork) — 85 percent of legal immigrants do as well.
In other words, yes, adding illegal migrants into the mix will help the statists take their California dreamin' nationwide more quickly, but it will happen regardless unless we change our suicidal immigration model. So it really doesn't matter if we "capitulate" on illegal migration or not, because we capitulated on the legalized version of it a long time ago. Now we're only deciding whether Western civilization in the U.S. will get a death by 100 demographic cuts or 1000.
To be fair, Ann Coulter at least made passing mention of this reality when she slipped into her piece that "Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate [emphasis added]...." Yet with the exception of Pat Buchanan, yours truly and a few others, this is an area where you're more likely to hear the truth from leftist commentators — when they're licking their chops over how successful they've been at importing their voters. Just consider, for instance, a 2011 NPR piece in which Mara Liasson cites a study by Ruy Teixeira at liberal feel tank Center for American Progress and writes:
-
Recent surges in the number of Hispanics in Arizona and Georgia could make those states potentially friendlier to Democratic candidates as well next year [2012]. Teixeira thinks similar population shifts could make holding on to Pennsylvania, where the president campaigned Wednesday, a little bit easier.
And 2032 and 2042? Well, Orwell's calling.
The fact is that upon being naturalized, our modern-day immigrants generally vote Democrat by wide margins — irrespective of whether upon arrival they were labeled legal or illegal.
And this isn't hard to understand. Would you expect a devout Muslim to relinquish his faith upon setting foot on American terra firma? Would you suppose that mere passage across a border could magically transform a committed communist into a fan of free markets? My point is that ideology is much like religion: It is something deep-seated. It becomes part of a person's self-image and gives his life meaning. And whether or not America is still the land of the free, it's certainly not the land of the free from harsh realities.
And the reality is this: Most of today's immigrants' native lands have socialist-type governments because their peoples support socialist politicians. This is why Democrats import them: so these new arrivals can support socialist politicians here. They're casting the votes Americans won't cast.
Unfortunately, though, the closest we come to discussing this is when statists write banal election-analysis pieces. Otherwise, immigration is framed as purely an economic issue. Are immigrants supplanting Americans or merely doing jobs natives won't? Are they contributing more in taxes than they use in services? In a nutshell, we just argue about money.
But what does it profit a nation to absorb the world but to lose its soul?
The fact is that the immigration debate is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of civilization we're going to be. For the people make the culture — not the other way around — and the culture makes the government. In just the way that the Islamic invasion of Egypt in the seventh century turned it into a Muslim and Arab land when it had been neither, if you replace America's population with a Mexican or Muslim one, you no longer have a Western civilization. You have Mexico Norte or Iran West.
It's the culture, stupid.
But don't expect a serious discussion about this anytime soon. For we are in the grip of Immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. It really is one of the most effective brainwashing con-jobs in history: Statists have made talk of what ensures their ultimate victory taboo. And Americans have been conditioned to accept as axiomatic a policy that guarantees the destruction of Western civilization in the U.S.
So if to you immigration is just a matter workers and labor costs, hospitals and services, and dollars and cents, then, hey, pesos and dinars can fill a bank account just as well. But if you're concerned about the entire country having a Golden State electorate and San Francisco values, you cannot separate legal immigration from illegal migration. It's all or nothing.
To only argue against amnesty is to fight for a half-measure — one that, ultimately, will still leave your children America dreamin' on a California day.
© Selwyn Duke
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
