A letter to Mark Krikorian
an e-mail I wrote to Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 04, 2003 05:48 PM | Send
Your article on the “Immigrant Freedom Ride” makes the usual mainstream conservative mistake of saying that the worst thing about some pro-minority, liberal agenda is that it hurts minorities (e.g. blacks being usurped by Hispanics as America’s favored minority) and undermines liberalism (e.g. a phony “freedom ride” for illegal aliens usurping the sacred Civil Rights movement). You still fail to understand that the mass immigration of non-Westerners, like affirmative action for non-whites, is at bottom a RACIAL phenomenon, a movement by non-white peoples and their suicidal white apologists to take over, appropriate, and destroy the white Western civilization of America.
From that RACIAL point of view, there is nothing contradictory in blacks’ and white liberals’ support for illegal-alien rights, since Hispanics, blacks and white liberals are united in their war on America’s historic culture and political system. Also, there is no contradiction between the idea that the illegals and their apologists are seeking benefits from the society, and the idea that they are are seeking to destroy the society. Like barbarians and egalitarians throughout history, they sack the source of wealth and culture, prior to leaving it a ruin.
Indeed, at the end of the article you yourself point out that the real aim of the open borders advocates is not to advance civil rights but to turn America socialist:
… [D]efending the interests of black Americans is not on the agenda of the open-borders movement. An op-ed by Harold Meyerson in Thursday’s Washington Post spelled out quite clearly that the Left sees mass immigration as a way to promote more socialism…But you still imply that this indicates a contradiction between what the immigration activists want and what blacks really want. The fact is that blacks support the racial-socialist agenda of modern liberalism, including anti-white race preferences. So do the Hispanics and the immigration activists. So there is no essential contradiction. The only contradiction is between the race-blind ideal that white mainstream conservatives (and a tiny handful of minorities) still believe in, and the anti-white system that white liberals and their minority clients are actually instituting.
Immigration, as I said, is a racial issue. It is racial in the sense that (1) it is aimed at destroying the historic white majority culture of America while increasing the power of non-white groups; and (2) any criticism of immigration is labeled as “white racism” and prohibited. The racial aspect of immigration can therefore not be ignored. Even though you yourself think that race doesn’t matter and are concerned about putatively non-racial issues such as maintaining a common citizenship and a middle-class society, the charge or suspicion of racism effectively marginalizes all your immigration reform arguments. You cannot break out of that box without confronting the racism charge, and that means talking about race. As long as you don’t name the problem that you are opposing, you’re ultimately disarmed against it. It’s like President Bush waging a “war on terror,” instead of on militant Islam.
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.