Republican Immigration FantasiesLittle of Substance Has Changed Since 1996
In my previous post concerning immigration, entitled “Immigration and Conflict,” I quoted the thinly veiled threat of Fernando Torres-Gil, assistant secretary for aging in the Department of Health and Human Services:
“The nation will be heavily dependent on workers from minority groups 'for the productivity and labor skills and the political willingness to pay taxes to support an aging population that will be largely white,…”
“Maybe we need a new GI bill for this segment (minority groups) of the population.
“But the spending will not be possible, he said, without the approval of the aging white population. 'It will be up to senior citizens, with their tremendous political clout, to protect their benefits like Medicare and Social Security and also invest in a new diverse, younger population,' he said.”
Thirty years from now, the black and brown coalition plans to pit its new brown majority against aging whites, threatening to cut off Social Security benefits (ie, make it a means-tested benefit) unless the retired white baby boomers vote for exorbitant taxes on their minority, middle-class offspring.
The black and brown coalition is going to pit the older generation of whites against the younger generation of whites to pay the future bills for welfare and education for America's new Third-World majority.
So the ongoing struggle within the Republican Party over immigration becomes critical. Realistically, the Democratic party is the party of black and brown. If we are to protect ourselves through the political process, the Republican Party will have to be the vehicle.
It is going to be a tough and ugly road ahead.
As the editors of National Review state in their March 25, 1996 issue (page 18) concerning the fate of the immigration reform bills:
“And there is a danger of defeat-posed, curiously, by Washington's conservative establishment. It mounts two sets of arguments against the reforms: first, that immigration is a clear continuing benefit to American society; second, that reduced immigration would damage GOP and conservative political prospects. To which we reply: if you believe that, you'll believe anything.”
As NR points out, the Republican establishment is bent on offending its own natural constituency:
“The socio-economic case was put in a 'Manifesto for Immigration,' written by Malcolm Wallop (Steve Forbes's campaign manager), Spencer Abraham, William Bennett, and Jack Kemp, and published (where else?) on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.”
They claim, quoting Julian Simon, that “the studies uniformly show that immigrants do not increase the rate of native unemployment.” Not so. For example, David Jaeger at the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published a study demonstrating that roughly half the decline in real wages of native dropouts is caused by immigration.
They argue, quoting Bill Gates, that limits on skilled immigration will damage American companies and U.S. inventiveness generally. But Norman Matloff of the University of California at Davis shows in a new report that a) almost all the major technical advances in computers have been made by U.S. natives; b) U.S. universities are turning out more domestic graduat
ey online”>how to make money onlinees each year than the computer industry needs; and c) skilled foreigners are hired simply because they are cheaper.
But the real problem is that so many in the Republican Party are driven to political fantasies about all these new immigrants voting Republican. As the editors of National Review point out, this will be politically fatal:
“And in most elections Hispanics vote Democratic over Republican by 70 to 30.”
“Population projections, moreover, suggest that continued high levels of immigration pose a real threat to the GOP's fragile national majority. The Census Bureau estimates that, if immigration continues at present levels, Hispanics will account for between 20.2 and 24.6 per cent of the U.S. population in 2050. If their political loyalties remain unchanged, that would give the Democrats a clear national majority. Hispanics would need to shift massively into the GOP column before that demographic shift was even negated, let alone reversed.”
But the worst problem is that Republican leaders are so ready to alienate whites by refusing to represent them. The Democrats blatantly appeal to the racial interests of blacks and browns, but somehow it is “unclean” for Republicans to appeal to the racial interests of Euro-Americans.
The Republican leadership would rather lose elections that give up its vision of integrationism.
The ability to deny racial consciousness among minorities is very important for many Republican leaders because they find defending the racial interests of Euro-Americans socially repellent.
In truth, they are so threatened by the prospect of being perceived as “white trash”, that they cannot bring themselves to represent whites politically. Thus, they can only be leaders of a de-racinated fantasy land that exists nowhere except in their own minds.
It is more important for them to uphold patrician rituals of manners than it is to recognize reality and save Western Civilization in North America.
And it is this powerful Republican status fear that produces such ridiculous ideological inconsistencies. For what these “free market conservatives” are forced to insist, by stubbornly clinging to their integrationist vision, is that each immigrant is “new socialist man” who loses any racial consciousness upon crossing our borders. It is a vision of blacks and browns as raceless automatons, conveniently stripped of racial aggression and instantly remade into the bolshevik ideal of creatures motivated solely by economic calculations.
Now what exactly is it about American capitalism that makes it able to precipitate Marxist cultural results with such dispatch? The truth is that such a transformation occurs not in the real world, but only in the minds of Republicans with status insecurities that render them unfit to lead.
The truth is that integrationism is a failure. The minority coalition will settle for nothing less than victory and dominance. It promises nothing but conflict.
The Republican Party has two choices:
- Preserve the Euro-American majority in a peaceful political process now, or…
- Allow Euro-Americans to slip into a permanent minority status in which their interests can only be defended through violence and secession.
That is it.
There are no other choices!