The Orwellian trap of describing illegal immigration as “immigration”

In his useful article on the budding national scandal we might call “Bordergate,” Andrew McCarthy writes:

Michelle Malkin, who has been a stalwart on immigration, reports that the United States government has been providing Mexico with intelligence about the lawful activities of American citizens, specifically, the locations and tactics of Minuteman patrols.

I have nothing against Michelle Malkin, I consult her website regularly, I admire her for her guts and dedication, and she certainly is a stalwart in the areas with which she deals. But the fact is that Malkin has written exclusively on only two aspects of immigration: (1) illegal immigration, and (2) lax immigration procedures that have let in terrorists and other undesirables. Through hundreds of columns and a book, she has not, to my knowledge, written a single word on legal immigration as such. All she opposes is violations and abuses of the law that have allowed illegal aliens and terrorists and criminals into America. The multitudinous other aspects of the immigration disaster have never been touched by her. The U.S. is currently taking in a million legal immigrants a year. She has never said a word about that. As a result of those one million legal immigrants per year, the Eastern Seaboard, the West Coast, and other areas such as the region around Chicago have been changed into crowded, hundreds-mile long megalopolises where traffic crawls for miles on end. She hasn’t said a word about that. The vast majority of the immigrants, particularly the Hispanics, are of a vastly lower educational and skill level than Americans and are steadily turning America from the middle class society it has always been into a permanently stratified, Third World-type society. She hasn’t said a word about that. Over 90 percent of legal immigrants are non-Europeans, as a result of which America has gone from a country that was 89 percent white in 1960 to a country that is about 70 percent white today. She has never said a word about that. As a result of that revolutionary transformation of a white country into a nonwhite country, our entire national identity and teaching of our history, the very way we think and speak about ourselves as a country, has been transformed, to the point that everything about the pre-1965 America is now seen as racist. A country that rejects and demonizes its own past has committed cultural suicide. Malkin has never written a word about this.

Malkin has only written about violations and abuses of our immigration laws. She has never criticized the laws themselves, nor the vast irreversible effects they are having on America.

For someone as smart as Andrew McCarthy to praise as a “stalwart on immigration” someone who has never said a word about immigration, who has only criticized illegal immigration, is an index of how we as a country have lost our grip on political reality. It shows how the writings of someone like Malkin have fooled vast numbers of readers into thinking that the issues she discusses are the immigration issue, period. Just as the left now calls illegal immigrants “immigrants” instead of “illegal immigrants,” Malkin and other conservatives focus so exclusively on attacking illegal immigration that (whether intentionally or not) they have defined immigration out of existence. At the very least, they have helped remove immigration from politics, since the current rule of polite discussion is that only illegal immigration can be criticized, and that before criticizing illegal immigration, the speaker must make it clear that he has absolutely no problem with legal immigration. Thus the right, along with the left, has moved America so far to the left on the immigration issue that not only is the left winning, but the conservative side cannot even be stated.

- end of initial entry -

Several readers’ comments follow.

Gordon M. writes:

You wrote,

“Over 90 percent of legal immigrants are non-Europeans, as a result of which America has gone from a country that was 89 percent white in 1960 to a country that is about 70 percent white today. She has never said a word about that. As a result of that revolutionary transformation of a white country into a nonwhite country, our entire national identity and teaching of our history, the very way we think and speak about ourselves as a country, has been transformed, to the point that everything about the pre-1965 America is now seen as racist. A country that rejects and demonizes its own past has committed cultural suicide. Malkin has never written a word about this.”

It has become taboo to discuss America as a nation of a particular race. Most conservatives dare not issue any statements about what race fundamentally constitutes the U.S. At best they “hint” at the educational qualifications of immigrants, at how they displace Americans at the work place, etc. BUT THEY NEVER ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ETHNICITY DIRECTLY. In this regard they have tacitly accepted (as you say) the liberal context for all speech and discussion.

That is why Laura Bush’s attitudes form a perfect complement to George Bush’s musings on religion and immigration; her personal sentiments are not extraneous to his public comments—they are two sides of the same coin. How can one describe this couple—liberal conservatism or conservative liberalism? Both of them are the face of Republicans that have accepted as valid the liberal context for speech.

Speaking continuously and vociferously, as some journalists do, about “illegal immigration,” without addressing the fundamental racial composition of this nation, is a dead giveaway that that journalist has drawn a line that he or she does not wish to cross. After all, how can one go on and on about “illegal immigration” without the underlying basis of that topic (i.e. immigration) hitting one in the face? That is akin to somebody continuously correcting another that two plus three does not make seven and never telling them what one plus one adds up to.

In reading a variety of so-called conservative journalists, I’ve come to the conclusion that they have drawn several lines and boundaries that they will never cross. They will “hint” at certain things but never directly address them. Thus the subject of “illegal immigration” becomes a code phrase that indicates where they really want to go but dare not do it. So they hang certain topics on themselves—as soldiers do with medals—to indicate that they bravely fought the good fight. Their “courageous onslaught” on certain subjects—the continual hammering on them—fools others into believing that they truly possess the medals of conservatism when in reality they are evading that which they won’t talk about. In other words, their vociferousness about certain things is a mask.

LA replies:

In this last paragraph Gordon M. states very well something that had been half-formed in my head but that I had never put into words.

EGI wrote:

With respect to your comments about Asians and quotas, you may find the following interesting: http://www.caasf.org/

Please note as well that the government considers “Asians”—both East Asians and South Asians—as “socially disadvantaged minorities’ to benefit from small business loans/grants and other special advantages. That these two groups tend to be high-status and high-income means nothing; after all they are the Morlocks and whites are the Eloi.

And the Eloi must know their place.

Also of interest is Asian “ethnic nepotism”; Sailer wrote on this a few months back, quoting Drew Fraser. Anyone familiar with East Asian and South Asian behavior knows the importance of ethnic nepotism for their success in other peoples’ countries. Of course, Asian intellectuals and professionals then try to preach to the white Eloi that (potential) white ethnic nepotism is “bad” and we should shrug our shoulders and forget that ethnic nepotism exists, or that is gives certain groups advantages over others.

With respect to Malkin: again, why any surprise about this? We are now in the “post-American” era, where the definition of “American” has been so broadened as to lose all practical meaning. We should be in the era of competing ethnic blocs, with white Americans competing the same as everyone else, despite the fact that the Asians tell us this is “bad.”

So, if the Morlocks practice group-oriented action, shouldn’t the Eloi do the same? Instead of knocking Malkin for promoting her group’s interests, let us promote our own spokesmen to promote our interests.

And, let us not mistake what is going on: by promoting a creedal American identity, and by NOT speaking out against legal immigration and demographic change, people like Malkin are promoting their groups’ interests. The side that is winning needs merely to promote the game continuing with minimum disruption. The game is white displacement; illegal immigration and the backlash against it may be a disruption. Time to make a few “reforms” and put the Eloi back to sleep. Immigration “reform” is very popular among “conservative” Asian intellectuals—by that they mean, less Mexicans and more Asians. How convenient.

LA replied:

You wrote: “With respect to Malkin: again, why any surprise about this?”

This is not the first time you have said to me, “why any surprise about this?” This is a stupid and annoying criticism. If you have a criticism, make one. But “why is this any surprise?” could be said about literally everything that is said. It is a purely negative remark, adding up to saying, “Why talk about this topic at all?” It’s a line you ought to drop.

Second, I do not see any sign that Malkin is deliberately promoting her group’s (Filipino? Asian?) interests or identity. Absolutely none. She approaches the issue as a standard mainstream U.S. conservative. That’s bad enough, and that’s enough to criticize her on. But there is no evidence for your charge against her. You are making a racial assumption about her.

Karen writes from England:

Illegals are not immigrants. They are invaders. The only difference between them and the military is that they have not made an open declaration of war and they are not bearing arms. It is, however, still a war and they are an occupying force which is taking control of some areas and acting with the tacit support of their own Governments. The use of the military to enforce their departure would be justified in my opinion.

The legal immigrants are a much worse problem because they have some rights and legal immigration to the West is huge. This is the real issue which needs to be challenged. Illegal immigration is a problem for all. Legal immigration is a problem for whites only. For the rest it is an advantage as it boosts their numbers. The larger the minorities make their groups, the more power they believe they can wield in pressing for their demands. And they pursue their interests ruthlessly unless they are opposed. Malkin et al don’t oppose legal immigration because they want to increase the numbers of their own people. They oppose illegal immigration because this is done mainly by Hispanics. None of them are acting in the interests of whites.

LA replies:

Again, I would say that there is no evidence that Malkin’s motive is to increase the numbers of her own people (however her own people are defined). It may be true, but there is no evidence for it. As far as I can see, her assumptions seem indistinguishable from those of any other mainstream conservative.

There is only one area where a definite racial criticism could be made of her, and this one is not her fault. She writes more on illegal immigration than any other columnist in the country. Would a white female columnist be allowed to write that much attacking illegal immigration? I doubt it. Malkin is a beneficiary of the anti-white assumption I’ve frequently criticized, that whites are less morally legitimate in these areas than nonwhites.

Jeff writes from England:

Very good summing up (in blog pointing out the flaws of Malkin whom we both admire) about the “real” issue: ALL immigration, especially the legal kind, especially the Hispanic version. But as most people need a step by step walking thru to get to the core of issues like this, I see the necessity of commentators such as Malkin concentrating just on illegal immigration. Ditto regarding so called Radical Islam vs.all Islam (people are only ready to attack the former). These are huge wars where we must focus on one battle at a time to be able to win in the end, whether against the Hispanic invasion or the Islamic invasion. People have had a hard time taking in the whole “shmear.” In addition, even if they do take in the dangers of legal immigration, the “Nation of Immigrants” imprint on peoples’ brains is so deep that they are unable to look at it in a serious way. The “Nation of Immigrants” concept acts as a beta blocker for many otherwise intelligent people. Like a very fat person looking in the mirror and still seeing a thin person.

That doesn’t mean legal immigration shouldn’t be talked about. I do see it as a great danger. But American whites (and other non-Hispanic groups such as blacks) are in such a state of denial about (Hispanic) immigration in general that they almost have forgotten “legal” immigration is changing the face of this country. Only the “illegal” invasion has begun to wake many of them up. I emphasise the word begun. They are in no state to see what I call THE BIGGER PICTURE. Bush’s (and many other Republican’s) indecisiveness is good in a way. It further gives average American citizens (ironically including legal Hispanics) incentive to be sympathetic to real “on the ground” anti-immigrant groups like the Minutemen. It has had to get much worse to begin to get better and that is exactly the scenario we are seeing unfold. The politicians refusing to build a wall and refusing to enforce deportations on illegals plus the illegal’s protests has had the effect of angering people, though not nearly enough. More bad immigration news must come … much more. So for the moment LEGAL immigration must be put on the back burner which is NOT to say that commentators like you shouldn’t be talking abut it at all. But the majority of Americans are simply not ready to digest the reality of the danger of LEGAL immigration.

LA replies:

There is validity in what Jeff says but he takes it too far. It’s one thing for commentators to focus on illegal immigration. It’s another thing to write so much about it, and to focus so exclusively on it, as to make illegal immigration not only disappear from view but to make it unmentionable. And this is the effect, whether deliberate or not, of the commentary of Malkin and others. And, pace Jeff, making any criticisim of legal immigration unmentionable and unthinkable is not progress.

I have further thoughts on Malkin and immigration here.

Peter G. writes:

Our society has been so completely turned into an intake machine, that the majority merely perceive it as a natural default. Locked in a dialectic of becoming rather than being, only a minority still contemplate what we were. [LA: Well said!]

A salient question to start asking white people is: “What are you looking forward too when whites are a minority in America?” That may shake people to start considering the consequences of current policy.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 11, 2006 10:21 PM | Send