PC-whipped on immigration?

Arlene M. writes:

Your discussion with Karl J. on the importance of race ties in with a concern I have about the narrowing of the debate on immigration. By this I mean the increasing tendency to discredit all opposition to immigration except for illegal immigration. It’s become obligatory for anyone criticizing any aspect of immigration to preface their criticism by saying “of course, I’m all for legal immigration; I have no problem with anyone from anywhere as long as they come legally.” This disclaimer seems to be a ritual incantation against accusations of “racism,” but I think that many people, even people who are very irate about our border crisis, have internalized this idea that wanting to control immigration is “racist.” On a couple of web forums that focus strictly on immigration, there is a rigid rule that only illegal immigration may be criticized, and that all criticism of Mexicans or Mexican culture is taboo. Violators are banned. Not only the moderators but forum members are quick to denounce anyone who strays from the PC guidelines. Even “conservatives” are PC-whipped.

And notice in any public discussion of the subject, the “conservative” will generally repeat the “I’m not anti-immigrant” mantra.

I see this as a very unhealthy thing; the Trifkovic article touches on this aspect of the problem too, in regard to the Islamic threat. As long as we are more concerned about displaying our anti-racist credentials than we are with defending our country and our culture, we are in peril.

Without the possibility of honest discussion and free debate we can never see our way to any real solutions, either to the Mexican invasion or the Islamic threat. It’s all part of the same struggle really, the struggle to overcome the crippling liberalism and attendant white guilt.

All the focus on illegality as being the only acceptable target of criticism of illegal immigration serves to paint us into a corner on the immigration issue. If the laws are changed so as to legalize the tens of millions of illegals, and the legal quotas are increased (as the Senate bill proposes) any objections we might have to the further transformation of our country will be discredited in advance. If we say that the illegality is the only problem, what argument will we have then?

I find it distressing that so many who are otherwise sensible and somewhat “conservative” people are allowing these new PC dictates to frame the debate. As long as this fear of being seen as racist is constricting the discussion, there seems little hope of a real solution.

I wonder what thoughts you have on this.

LA replies:

Great e-mail. But I had no idea it was this bad. My impression was that the current crisis was bringing out more frank expressions of hostility to both illegal and legal immigration than ever before. But if the facts you are portraying are true, that is bad.

If the focus on illegal immigration is forcing legal immigration off the table, what to do? The only thing to do is resist it, draw attention to it, vocally insist that this issue is much larger than mere lawbreaking, and, furthermore, that the present bill is not just about illegals but a huge expansion of legal immigration.

In other words, our side has got to take the initiative and define the ground rules, not let the other side do it for us. That’s the only thing that works. The problem with conservatives is that, even when opposing liberals, they let the basic premises of the discussion be established by the liberals, so that they’re always moving in orbit around the liberals, speaking in liberal terms, thinking in liberal categories. Serious conservatives do not fall for that. They realize that if they are to win, they must be the ones who define the issue.

Ben writes:

Arlene M. is exactly right on what she is saying, I almost busted out laughing when I read it because everybody I know who’s “conservative,” whether its on tv or Internet or even people I know personally, say, “I have no problem with anyone coming here from anywhere as long as they come legally.” It has really become a platitude used by people to prevent possible attacks of a racism charge.

Most websites discussing illegal immigration do exactly what she said they do. They are flaming mad about this issue but they say, “But don’t say anything about the Mexican culture (racist statements as they call it from their being conditioned on liberal thought), because we must remain civil in this debate.”

They don’t understand how liberalism has totally engulfed their thinking. This is the one area that keeps holding conservatives back. Being so scared to be called a racist. It literally terrifies them.

That’s why you also see tons of articles by conservatives start out by giving a long history of their immigrant families and how they came here and worked hard, followed the law, and made America great. It’s not that saying their grandparents came here and worked hard etc is bad, but that has become the platform which says immigration is a wonderful thing, it’s just illegal immigration that’s bad.

When George Bush says, we are a nation of immigrants, it’s to play at the heartstrings of these very people who’s grandfathers came over here. Instead of conservatives just coming out and saying “Look, there’s a big difference between people of European ancestry coming here then people of Islamic/Middle Eastern, Mexican, South American, etc., they have to make it clear they would not be against it if they would just follow our laws. In other words, they are equal to their grandfathers if they just follow the law like they did. To me this mind set is totally false.

To give an example of what she meant about illegal immigration sites, one site I go to is really passionate about this issue of illegal immigration but it amazes me how even they are afraid of liberals criticizing them. These guys are VERY vocal about what is going on and are passionate about it. But look at their rules… http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-317.html

It goes right back to what Arlene said, they want to make sure that they make it perfectly clear they are FOR immigration but against illegal immigration. I see this over and over again. It goes hand in hand with the nation of immigrants garbage and they play right into George Bush’s hand on that one. He will eventually play their game and say ok…I’ll close the border and we’ll bring in 10,000,000 a year legally. I wonder what they would all then say in regards to that?

If conservatives could just get past being worried about being called a racist, I believe we really could bring this country back to strong nationalism again because I believe a lot of people are starting to wake up, but success will never come to them unless they totally clear their mind and reject liberalism and reject the notion that America cannot survive without “legal” immigration.

LA replies:

Well, you could cut through this very easily by saying, “Since you have no problem with legal immigration at all, how would you feel if we had 10 million legal immigrants per year?” Have you tried that?

Spencer Warren writes:

I read in the Telegraph or Times that the BNP is now second in number of seats in the borough of Barking and Dagenham.

It’s hard to get a broad view as these papers and the BBC, at least from what I see on the net this morning, try to downplay them.

On the very good posts by your writers regarding legal immigration, in addition to the point they make, one should use these arguments, which go beyond the cultural, ethnic issues:

1. Our country now has too many people, contributing to massive and rapidly Worsening traffic congestion (not least in the D.C. area), pollution and rapidly growing sprawl that is eating up the countryside like a cancer with cheap housing and huge, tacky malls. It will drive up housing costs, especially for working class Americans (if it hasn’t already), and it is driving up the cost of gasoline and other essentials. It brings in diseases like tuberculosis (see this week’s story about Framingham, Mass) that we had eradicated in our country. It requires we import more oil than we would otherwise—with obvious national security implications—and could eventually force us for the first time in history to become a food importer. Note projections that at current rates our population will grow 50 percent in the next fifty years, to 450 million. (I saw this explained at the website of cis.org.)

2. Importing unskilled people in large numbers greatly harms U.S. workers’ wages and job opportunities.

3. It Balkanizes the country, particularly with such large numbers coming from the same, contiguous nation and region (which posseses one language and culture). It adds to the centrifugal forces that are undermining our national identity. The schools, libraries and news media promote not assimilation but division via multiculturalism.

4. Any further Mexican immigration, even if legal, is harmful to our country because, as you explain, Mexico, or some elements in Mexico, harbors hostile revanchist aims against the USA.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 05, 2006 01:46 AM | Send