|
More on Rep. Paul and legal immigration
I’ve posted a few comments in the lively LibertyPost discussion about Ron Paul and immigration, starting at comment #115. Also, my response to the LibertyPost thread about my first entry on Paul has set off yet another LibertyPost thread. Though it was posted at 6:43 p.m today, it already has 65 comments, at 8:30 p.m. Unfortunately most of the comments are either for or against the uninteresting charge that my comments about Paul are illegitimate because I am attributing to him a view he has not explicitly taken, namely, “He has no problem with America turning into a Muslim or Mexican or Chinese country, or all three.” But of course liberals never state explicitly what they’re about, and in any case it doesn’t matter what a politician says will be the effect of his position. What matters is what the effect of his position really is. A person who supports wide open immigration, as Paul does, is a person who supports the total cultural and racial transformation of America. Do my critics at LibertyPost expect Paul to say, “I support the total cultural/racial transformation of America”? If he was conscious of wanting that, he wouldn’t say it. And if he was not conscious of wanting that, it wouldn’t matter, because what matters in politics is not a person’s conscious intentions but the principles and policies he supports, and their logical and predictable effects. A person who supports liberal principles and policies is a liberal, regardless of whether he calls himself a liberal. America’s immigration policies changed a country that was 89 percent white in 1960 into a country that is 67 percent white today, and if current immigration continues, America will become a white minority country in a few decades, after which the white percentage of the population will continue to drop until the percentage of whites in America will be no greater than that in South Africa, one fifth. Our immigration policies have changed California, once a white, Republican state, into a nonwhite, Democratic state. Virtually all elected politicians in the U.S. support our current immigration policies that have produced and are producing the results I’ve described.. Yet not one of them has ever said, “I support our current non-discriminatory immigration law, which is steadily turning America into a nonwhite country. I support our current immigration law, which is making America a Hispanic/Mestizo country and dooms America to Latin American-type politics and economy. I support our current immigration law, which is rapidly increasing the population of Muslims who are commanded by their god to subject all other peoples to their tyrannical religion.” Not a single politician says these things, yet each one of these things is true. So how can we speak of the meaning and direction of the policies that Paul and other politicians support, without going beyond when they themselves say about their own positions?
Update: I posted a couple of comments in the LP thread, but the discussion went downhill, with a lot of namecalling going back and forth between a few of the participants (not me). Email entry |