Importing family values: what it really means

Randall Parker highlights Heather Mac Donald’s important and astonishing article showing that Hispanic immigrants, who already have the highest fertility level of any group in America, also have the highest illegitimacy rates. There is much to be said about this. But for the moment, here is a passing thought that was triggered by Parker’s article, which I also posted as a comment at his site:

Reading Mr. Parker’s article I just realized something. When President Bush speaks of family values, what does he mean? Does he mean, say, a married man and woman and their children, as distinct from an unmarried mother and her children? No! He means any grouping of parents and children, regardless of marital status. After all, he ran in 2000 saying that “Single moms have the toughest job in America,” thus not only approving of non-marital families but making them the special object of national concern. Obviously Bush sees non-marital families as families, and he therefore he sees non-marital families as carriers of family values. So what he really means by family values is the act of having children. And since having children is the way of human nature, what he means by family values is indistinguishable from humanity itself. So, when he says that family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande, and that we must therefore not exclude Mexican families from the United States, what he really means is that humanity doesn’t stop at the Rio Grande, and that we must not exclude humanity from the United States.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2006 07:50 AM | Send