The forbidden topic returns—thanks to Jorge Busheron
A reader writes:
Ann Coulter is arguing for Americans having a right to decide the ethnic make-up of their nation on Larry Kudlow’s show on CNBC….. Will wonders never cease?George Washington once wrote that in a “democratical republic” people must feel an evil before they will see it, which is why, Washington concluded, this type of government is so slow to act. I have been warning about the racial and cultural effects of mass Third-World immigration since 1990. I was allowed, using carefully reasoned and restrained arguments, to state these concerns a handful of times in the mainstream media, in newspaper columns, in National Review, on radio interviews, and even once on Crossfire. But in the mid 1990s, the topic of race and race differences, which had seemed to be dramatically opening up, especially in connection with the publication of The Bell Curve, was shut down completely, at least as far as the mainstream liberal media and the “respectable” conservative media were concerned. But now, 11 years later, from out of the blue, from out of a debate that everyone seemed to think was solely about illegal immigration, the subject of the racial impact of mass Third-World immigration is being brought up again, and not by “far-out conservatives” like myself, but by establishment commentators.
The other day Bill O’Reilly, who is not even a conservative but a loud centrist, said on his Fox TV program that mass immigration is driven by the left’s desire to destroy white Christian America (and let’s remember that the left here includes President Bush). Today, Ann Coulter, who to my knowledge has never discussed race and immigration, said on CNBC that America’s ethnic composition is a legitimate topic of debate. (Which is what I sputtered to Julian Simon and Juan Williams on Crossfire in 1991, when I could get a word in edgewise through the crossfire.) Even the Wall Street Journal columnist Amity Shlaes writes in today’s New York Sun that the more Third-World immigrants there are in America, the more multiculturalism we will have and the more our traditional culture will be dismantled. This is a point that Shlaes’s fellow neocons have been staunchly denying for 15 years. They always said (see this and this) that multiculturalism has nothing to do with immigration, that it is driven solely by such factors as leftist ideology and the perceived needs of blacks.
Why is this sudden opening-up of the subject occurring now, after so many years of denial and voluntary or enforced silence? I think it’s happening because the vast illegal-alien protest marches of recent months, plus the aggressively anti-American statements by Mexican and Hispanic leaders (“America is not a country, it’s a continent”), plus the revelation earlier this week of the unbelievable increase in Hispanic immigration that would occur under the fraudulently named “temporary workers” provisions of S.2611, have made people feel for the first time how Hispanic immigration has already transformed us, and how it could transform us far more profoundly in the future. And now that they feel it, they also see it and are thinking about it and are ready to talk about it.
Thus the open-borders extremism of George W. Bush and his millions of Mexican allies may have finally broken the taboo on discussing the racial motivations, the racial dimensions, and the racial and cultural effects of Third-World immigration.