I think that Mr. Kirkorian is well aware of the damge immigration does to normative Americans. However, the fear of the PC left and thie allies on the right has infected the immigration reform movement.
We do not want to be called racist.

In the above article I treat immigration and racial preferences as though they were two different policies tending toward the same goal. But with the Grutter decision, those policies are now one; the more nonwhite immigrants are in America, the more recipients of racial preferences there are, with more and more discrimination against whites. This makes for an unanswerable moral argument against further non-European immigration, so long as Grutter and the immoral race-preference system that it justifies are in place. Frankly, I have no hope that CIS will ever make this argument. They approach immigration only as a TECHNICAL issue. Their impressive-seeming publications tend to be endless collections of data without meaning. I doubt that more than a tiny handful of people read them beyond the executive summaries. I seems unlikely that CIS, given its data-based orientation and aversion to controversy, will ever grapple with the larger moral, political and civilizational consequences of immigration.

However, to end this comment with one hopeful sign, let me point to Krikorian’s statement that immigration advocates on the left seek to use immigration to make America a socialist country. Such an acknowledgement that immigration has a distinct _tendency_, that it feeds certain political/cultural _agendas_, has been all too rare coming from CIS and is to be encouraged.

Mr. Auster has noted that many of the “mainstream conservatives” and neocons have had a blase reaction to the Grutter decision. These people used to oppose racial preferences, while supporting unlimited immigration. I have mentioned this on the Forum before. They support bringing in people who strengthen the numbers of their political opponents. This means anti-semitic Arabs, in particular.

As a practical matter, I have one suggestion for bringing this side of the immigration debate out into the open: Bring in more British voices speaking on the parallel immigration debacle that is sweeping their own country. Voices on that side of the Atlantic are far more willing to talk about the erosion of historic peoples. And when the British talk about immigration to Britain, Americans that would never listen to the same thoughts on America: “But we are a nation of immigrants!”, may find themselves in agreement. From that more palatable viewpoint, it is a shorter jump to understanding the racial implications of immigration in America.

I agree with Thrasy. First, the English are more frank and unembarrased about race than Americans are, and second, Americans have a certain intellectual deference to them. What the English lack is the ability to articulate problems in terms of universals. So we need to combine the best of England and America. From the English, we get the frankness about particularity; from the Americans, we get moral universals, except that (in my hopeful scenario) the moral universals will be used to justify our right to exist as a distinct people, whereas at present our moral universals are being used to cancel out our existence as a distinct people.

These are some interesting points; national and larger identity as absent from public debate. Certainly it is not our identity to have no identity; that would be a contradiction-in-terms. When the officially established pro-diversity religionists say that America’s identity is diversity, surely they contradict themselves; it can’t be our identity to have no identity. Or, when the pro-diversity say don’t you love the diversity of N.Y. or whatever place, one can’t logically say yes, as if one could love non-identity, can one? Indeed, there is a lot of race dependence in these issues, some very obviously so. The minorities are not starting it though, it is the government and its academic cheerleaders who promote racial conflicts in order to eventually set off a war that allows for the setting up of dictatorship. Notice that it is the countries which have not fallen to dictators which are asked to change their identity and to value diversity from the majority. The pro-dystopians have been raging at their inability to foment a class war; their hatred against freedom from aggression is intense because it frustrates their plans.Once they gave up on other civil war possibilities, the race war became their refuge against despair. No matter that national socialism has been the leading source of this sort of conflict-mongering; the pro-dystopians write their own reviews. Americans will probably be slow to see that what is being promoted is race war, they would rather try to laugh it off, hoping that intellectual leaders can’t really be as evil as they sound.