Diversity—and dawning resistance?—in North Carolina

(Note: This entry includes an exchange on whether it’s wrong to say that interracial marriage is wrong. This is a difficult subject, and I invite readers to comment on my answer to William W., below.)

Christopher writes:

I am now once again able to access your site. I couldn’t be happier. I need the support your site gives me. You are one of the true blue anti-liberals in modern society. As I said in my last email, I’ve met MANY others who would agree with you on many ideas—including diversity.

I live in North Carolina, where racial struggle has been common. There is now an inundation of Mexican immigration that is moving even into our smallest communities, and many people are now openly worried about it. Immigration and its problems is now a common theme around here. The NC DOT drivers license offices now have Spanish bulletins and applications written in English and Spanish. I openly complained to the DOT people behind the desk and they AGREED with me that if they couldn’t read English, how on earth could they read the road signs?

I’ve spoken to many whites, including my own pastor at my very conservative church and he agreed that we were justified Biblically in wanting to remain the majority. We recently had Church study on the wrongness of interracial marriages and the church REQUESTED to hear the message.

A Pew poll says that 20 percent of white Dems will vote McCain if Obama is the nominee. I may be wrong, but I sense a fed-up feeling building in America. In fact, many of the people I speak to say just that—they are fed-up with Third Worlders invading our nation. Anyway, sorry to ramble on, and I still feel worried about many things.

LA replies:

People saying privately that they’re fed up with Third World invasion (though it’s not actually an invasion since both legal and illegal immigration are being allowed by our own government) is a step forward from not saying it at all and indicates grass roots support for immigration reform and certainly troops for the kind of mass opposition to amnesty that we saw last year. But by itself it’s not enough to turn it around. The opposition has to be public and articulate. A Christian pastor saying in conversation that the American majority is justified biblically in wanting to remain the majority is remarkable in itself. But if he said it publicly, that would be the kind of thing that would give the society the ability to resist the entire pro-immigration ideology and stop the immigration.

LA wrote to Christopher:

“he agreed that we were justified Biblically in wanting to remain the majority.”

The statement is unheard of from a Christian pastor. Can you tell me more about him? What is his denomination and background? Does he talk regularly on this subject?

Christopher replies:

I’m sorry I didn’t mention this the first time, but during the service, my pastor also talked about many other things. He biblically demonstrated that the races were not to mix (he called on young people in the room to avoid the heartache by avoiding miscegenation). He also criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by showing how many of America’s problems followed this. He demonstrated that forced mixing and integration was the cause of much of America’s downhill moral slide since. He taught us that God segregated man in order to win them to Christ and that every time they integrated it led them away from Christ (The Tower of Babel was his illustration). America has been trending away from God since then at a ferocious pace. He fired off two dozen examples of moral decline since then. He then floored everyone by demonstrating that God was a segregationist—with a black woman in the congregation (she’s the only black that attends). I was floored, even though I knew he felt that way. We then had many in the congregation speak up and ask questions, and many were highly intelligent relating to race.

It was after the congregation that I approached the preacher and asked him if he thought whites had the right to want to remain the majority-and he said yes. We then discussed the fact that America was a nation built by white English speaking heterosexual men. He then mentioned that because the Founders assumed that whites would always be the majority they created a Constitution that could very well be our undoing.

Kind of depressing now that one thinks of it more deeply but here’s a lighter note. A University of SC poll of Hispanics showed a whopping 30 percent did not intend to remain in the U.S. beyond a 5-10 year time frame and only wanted to earn money here and take it back to their home countries. How I wish (but dare not) it would happen.

William W. writes:

Christopher from NC reflects, no doubt, what many North Carolinians believe about illegal immigration and its effects on our country. But he is totally out of line implying that inter-racial marriage is wrong. It may, in many cases, be foolish. It may be troubling, and difficult for the couple and their children. But wrong? That’s crazy. As a member of the military, I can tell you that there are many fine families, where deployed soldiers met women in other countries, married them, and brought them stateside. As a matter of fact, something very like happened in my family. My own wife is from another country, and both she and I are as conservative as you get. I agree with many of the ideas expressed on this site, and certainly with the spirit of what most of your posters say. I agree that it is important that our immigration policies maintain a white majority in America, but I really think that Christopher’s comments were quite wrong themselves, and I’m bothered that you let such an implication pass without comment.

LA replies:

No one questions the fact that on the individual level there are fine interracial marriages and interracial families. But the individual level is not the only level that counts here. William himself says that it is important to maintain a white majority in America. Well, then, he would support a restrictive immigration policy that would keep out of the U.S. many fine nonwhite individuals, because there is something that transcends individual worth and individual deserts, which is our country, culture, race (however defined), and civilization. Therefore the desires of many worthy individuals to enter the U.S. must be blocked, if the larger whole of the U.S. is to be preserved.

The people who disapprove of interracial marriage are saying the same thing. They do not deny that there are fine interracial couples composed of fine individuals. Rather, they are saying that interracial marriage is bad for our society as a whole, and therefore it should not be encouraged, but discouraged. Right now our society actively encourages it, by telling people that race is of absolutely no importance, that only individual desires matters, and that diversity is good, the more the better (though of course intermarriage leads to the destruction of the diversity of actual races, but we’ll leave that aside for now). How is this dominant liberal belief to be opposed, except by taking the opposite position? And that’s what that pastor is doing—he’s taking the opposite position. And William is disapproving of the pastor, even though William’s own philosophy is at least implicitly the same as that of the pastor, on immigration if not on intermarriage.

But that’s not the end of it. Given that William believes in maintaining a white majority America, how can it be maintained if more and more whites marry nonwhites? Each interracial marriage and family is a message to society that racial distinctions in general and whiteness in particular do not matter and should be dispensed with. And the more interracial marriage becomes the norm, the more the rejection of the value and legitimacy of whiteness becomes the case. How can a society that rejects the value and legitimacy of whiteness turn around and say that it wants whites to remain the majority? It won’t be able to, because it has accepted the opposite principle, which is that race—including the white majority race of America and the West—is of no importance and that only the desires of individuals matter.

Now, I have no desire to criticize individual interracial couples. I recognize that on the individual level they have made a choice that is right for them. And obviously in any racially mixed society there are inevitably going to be interracial marriages. But that doesn’t change the fact that as a general principle interracial marriage is not good for society, for the reasons I’ve given and for reasons I haven’t yet discussed. It’s one thing to see individual interracial marriages as an exception to the general rule and accept them on that basis. It’s another thing to say that interracial marriage as such is a good thing for society. I don’t think it is.

In the same way, it’s one thing to accept individual nonwhite people as our fellow humans, citizens, and neighbors in a white majority society. It’s another thing to say that whiteness as such doesn’t matter, that the whiteness of the West doesn’t matter, and that we ought to become a nonwhite society.

The underlying principle here is that the individual level of morality, the recognition of the individual person and his rights, while important, cannot be the level that rules when it comes to deciding on policies and general concepts that affect the identity, existence, and survival of our society as a whole. In the latter case, our society’s racial character, its cultural character, and its religious character become important as such and must be defended and supported as such, along with the policy implications that flow from that understanding.

Jeremy G. writes:

I thought this was very good. This is the most principled objection to interracial marriage that I have read. It appeals to both the universalist and particularist aspects of the white mentality. It also helps clarify how we think of whites who intermarry. We don’t waste effort criticizing them. We leave them alone and focus our efforts on raising the racial consciousness of the whites who remain.

Mark K. writes:

Thank you for the succinct concluding statement you wrote in “Diversity—and dawning resistance?—in North Carolina.” I respect your ability to phrase an issue in almost mathematical terms thus removing any emotionalism and heat. The phenomenon of race mixture in all of its manifestations (marital, cultural, political, etc.) bears with it the aura of a taboo if discussed at all. To place it in the context of history and civilization and make it a social rather than just an individual issue is the right approach.

LA asks Christopher:

Is this your congregation and your regular pastor, or a guest pastor? and do you know his denomination? I’m interested because these kinds of views are so rare today among any Christians.

Christopher replies:

I attend a Baptist church and the pastor is of Italian ancestry and he was born and raised in North Carolina.

He is the regular pastor, and the congregation asked him to preach for them—many are growing tired of liberal Christianity. He criticizes all manor of liberalism in our society. Also we have had quite a few guest preachers and they have all been very conservative just like him. It is a great Baptist church.

Alan Levine writes:

I agree with William W., though I concede your arguments against interracial marriage are the best I have ever seen—more exactly, they are the only reasonable arguments I have ever seen. I was, however, bothered by the whole argument stressing the issue of “whiteness,” a word I have only encountered in psychotic leftist “whiteness studies,” in the context of immigration. The argument against immigration can perfectly well proceed without any reference to race, and in fact is probably better off without it. Why bring in color on this particular issue when it is obvious that immigration threatens the interests, if not the lives of ALL of the native-born? If anything, it is a more immediate threat to blacks than to whites, for well-known socioeconomic reasons. And many of them know that, even if their “leaders” don’t. It is the other side that is pandering to anti-white racism and Hispanic arrogance; make them pay for it. The latter feature, by the way, is quite marked even among Cubans of pure white descent, as has been rather obvious in Miami.

LA replies:

I have been writing about this issue since 1990 and you act as though you’re surprised to find it at VFR. Have you read my 1990 booklet, The Path to National Suicide? (It’s online now both in pdf and html.)

For you, who have been reading VFR for several years, to tell me that you’re bothered by my discussion of race and that the argument about immigration can proceed better without race, and that race should not be talked about, makes me wonder if you have ever taken in what I’m saying for all these years.

Alan Levine replies:

I in no way meant to contest the point that it is legitimate for white Americans to oppose being reduced to a minority, we would be crazy not to reject this, not to mention the whole racial guilt trip complex, affirmative action etc. (Offering the last to immigrants, all by itself makes support for , or even allowing, legal non-white immigration insane.)

I was making two points:

1) The vague “whiteness” phrase does in fact bother me for associational reasons; in my opinion such phrases never escape their insane original leftist associations no matter how they are used or redefined by the right. (Cf. the use of “Cold Warrior.)

2) The invocation of race in discussing the particular, specific issue of immigration is a mistake for practical political reasons, not because it is illegitimate, but because on this issue the interests of all native-born, except possibly and dubiously some Hispanics, are the same. Why do anything that will make the other side’s life simpler?

I certainly did not mean to suggest “we ought not discuss race.” Actually, the issue here is culture and economics as much as race. Culturally, the arrogant conduct of white Hispanics is just as much of a threat as the rest, a point I was trying to make. Economically, no one but a few exploiters gain from immigration, while almost everyone is hurt by it. Why reduce the issue just to race? All the real arguments are on our side. The particular and perfectly justified interests of the white majority should not cause embarrassment, but should not be overemphasized either.

LA replies:

It seems to me that you’re all over the place on this. First you say, “it is legitimate for white Americans to oppose being reduced to a minority, we would be crazy not to reject this.” But then you say “The invocation of race in discussing the particular, specific issue of immigration is a mistake for practical political reasons, not because it is illegitimate.” And then you say: “I certainly did not mean to suggest ‘we ought not discuss race.’”

So (1) it’s legitimate for us to oppose X, but (2) we should never mention X for practical reasons. But how can we oppose it if we can never mention it? And then you add (3) that it’s ok for us to discuss it.

You remind me of an Islam critic whom I challenged on the fact that the Islam critics never called for ending Muslim immigration. The person replied that of course Muslim immigration should be restricted. I replied, “‘Of course’ it should be restricted? If it’s ‘of course,’ then why have you and other Islam critics never called for it to be restricted?” Somehow the truth and importance of the position, which this person affirmed, did not translate into openly stating the position. But if it’s not openly stated, how will people ever be persuaded of it?

You write:

“The invocation of race in discussing the particular, specific issue of immigration is a mistake for practical political reasons, not because it is illegitimate, but because on this issue the interests of all native-born, except possibly and dubiously some Hispanics, are the same.”

But that’s not true. First, most nonwhites do not have the same identity in and loyalty to America as a historic people that whites do. And therefore it is a delusive hope that nonwhites are going to help us get control of immigration. This is the chronic conservative search for the “conservative minority,” who when it comes to immigration nine times out of ten ends up being more loyal to the open immigration of his ethnic group than to the well being of America. How many Koreans, Chinese, blacks, Hispanics are in the immigration control movement?

Finally, as you surely know, I have never reduced the issue to just race. But fundamental to the immigration issue is that nonwhites are replacing whites. That changes our economy, our culture, our notion of rule of law, our national identity, our very sense of being a country. Also the America haters are fully conscious of the fact that by displacing the American majority the are weakening America and turning it into something they can dominate. Then there is the fact that our current immigration policy began when America in 1965 gave up the nationality- and race-conscious restrictions that had been in place since 1921. In so many ways race is central to the immigration issue. The issue simply cannot be discussed intelligently or grappled with effectively without reference to race. I will never join the ranks of those who refuse to speak the truth about immigration.

The one point where I might agree with you is that perhaps the use of the word “whiteness” is problematic. I’ll think about that.

[LA adds later:

I agree that my phrase about “the value and legitimacy of whiteness” was not the best way of saying it. It does sound a little weird to speak of “whiteness” as a value, and that’s not normally the language I use. I could have spoken in more nuanced (but no less definite) terms about “the value and legitimacy of the white European peoples as both a racial and a culture-forming reality in human history, and their right to continue existing as peoples and nations…” However, I’m not sure that would have been more acceptable to Mr. Levine.]

[Alan Levine replies:

I have no problem with this formulation at all!]

Vincent Chiarello writes:

Several years ago, the University of Virginia, “Mr. Jefferson’s university,” began a pilot project in which this prestigious institution of higher learning sponsored a series of talks and small gatherings within the school whose sole purpose was to encourage inter-racial dating. It struck me odd then, as it strikes me now, that any college or university would consider it necessary to set such a goal, and that such an objective is within its educational purview. One could ask, rhetorically, if “dating” was the sole purpose of the program, or whether breaking down barriers to interracial marriage was also an objective? I do not know, and I also do not know if that program was phased out, or still continues.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, (1967) which overthrew laws that banned miscegenation, the idea of interracial marriage has remained taboo in most quarters. It should be noted that the Court’s ruling specifically stated that one purpose of miscegenation was to maintain “white supremacy.” True, resistance to inter-ethnic, and, later, inter-religious marriages, have passed into history for the most part; not so, inter-racial unions. But the Liberal juggernauts that dominate both the halls of academe and the media have, for decades, sought to break down the “preconceived” idea of most Americans that interracial marriage is not normally a wise choice. Can the genie be put back into the bottle? I don’t believe so, and I also do not think it matters a great deal.

The greatest number of inter-racial marriages involving whites within the U.S. are with Asians, not blacks. Even if that were not the case, most Christian and Jewish religious bodies do not consider such unions unwise—which is why the comments of an earlier contributor are the exception, rather than the rule. Although I totally agree with LA that huge increases in interracial marriage can serve as an instrument of reversing the fundamental elements of this country’s founding—white, European and Christian, I suspect that such future interracial unions will, even with programs such as that begun at Virginia, be modest in number, and never serve as the structural cause of our societal decline.

Andrew E. writes:

Mr. Chiarello mentions a pilot project at the University of Virginia to encourage interracial dating and speculates as to its purpose. As a graduate of UVA back in 2001, I have no recollection of such a program then but what I do know is that there was an enormous amount of self-segregation between the black and non-black student populations and this was a major source of embarrassment for the school. I recall that the school took great pride in its affirmative action policies, and the freely chosen behaviors and associations of the student body made plain the unnaturalness of it all. My guess is they used the dating seminars to change this for image purposes. One day during my third year (we were not freshmen but “first years,” not sophomores but “second years,” to remain gender neutral I suppose), the student government held a day of support for affirmative action and students who supported the policies were encouraged to wear all black! I did not participate and was very skeptical about the whole thing, though I was years away from being able to articulate why (thank you VFR!).

The other student groups mixed more often but for the most part kept to themselves, the East Asians with the East Asians, the South Asians with the South Asians, the Hispanics with the Hispanics.

Looking back, I’m thankful that I was an engineering student and was largely insulated from all the liberalism, since my curriculum consisted of courses in the hard sciences, mathematics and applied mathematics, and computer programming.

Vincent Chiarello writes:

If memory serves, the University of Virginia’s program to encourage interracial dating occurred about 2005-6, but, given what Andrew observed earlier, could easily be interpreted as the university administration pushing the affirmative action envelope further.

What was also unusual about the program in question was that no effort was made to hide or mask its intent, as is often the case in promoting such objectives. The pandering to blacks students, who, as Andrew correctly points out, often chose to segregate themselves with the tacit permission of the university officials, still exists today, as it does in dozens of other universities as well. At Virginia, blacks, with no educational reason to be at the university, appeared in ever growing numbers, and on-campus security became a nightmare: women were advised—and this exists at other universities—to leave the library or the laundry in pairs for their own security. Similar problems arose in the nearby city of Charlottesville: the crime rate in the downtown area had risen to a point where one was warned about being in certain areas after dark.

Still, the liberal academic juggernaut refused to acknowledge what was happening on campus, and, having lost sight of its educational objectives, redoubled its efforts to “encourage interracial dating,” which it thought would resolve, or help to resolve, the chaos it had brought on itself.

Alan Levine writes:

1) I am not “searching for the conservative minority,” merely pointing out that one way of handling the issue makes more political sense than another. By the way, while blacks are surely not going to become conservative in any predictable future, they ARE anti-immigration. Aside from the point that they are entitled to our sympathy on this point, crudely utilitarian considerations enter in. The hostility between blacks and Mexicans is quite visible; why not make use of it?

Additionally, harping on this point annoys the left no end!

2) With your obsession with race, you are unable to handle the point that culture is often the main issue, a point I was trying to make by remarking on the disgusting behavior of the Cuban-Americans in Miami. This is also the main problem in Europe. Most immigrants to Europe are white Muslims from Turkey and North Africa.

Their being white does not prevent them from being far worse enemies to the native Europeans than wetbacks are to us.

LA replies:

> By the way, while blacks are surely not going to become conservative in any predictable future, they ARE anti-immigration.

Really? How has this manifested??

You are mistaking opinions expressed in opinion polls for an active political force. Those are two different things.

Given this great black reservoir of immigration restrictionism, and the efforts of both liberals (such as Jack Miles, who are concerned about the effects of immigration on blacks) and conservatives to involve blacks actively in the issue over a period of many years, why has this wonderful thing never happened? What would have to happen in order for it to happen? Blacks would have to be on the same side as whites in defending America from Third-World immigration. That’s a very very difficult proposition. So what you’re saying is that the white majority, or specifically white conservatives, who are the ONLY group in America that can turn the immigration issue around, should, instead of making the best and truest arguments they can, suppress key arguments and bend themselves out of shape trying to attract black allies who in all likelihood will never show up; or, if they do show up, will decamp in an instant the moment their conservative allies say anything that displeases them.

No. The only force in America that can lead on this issue, that can make it happen, is white conservatives. They must lead, and then those people who agree with them, including a certain number of black individuals (not black organizations and politicians), will side with them. Leadership means that you lead, and those who like what you’re doing, follow. But you can’t lead if you’re twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to form “alliances” that by the very nature of things cannot be formed.

> With your obsession with race, you are unable to handle the point that culture is often the main issue, a point I was trying to make by remarking on the disgusting behavior of the Cuban-Americans in Miami.

Not true. I talk in cultural terms a great deal, without even bringing up race. Look at the campaigns at VFR against the 2006 and 2007 immigration bills. Through the great majority of those articles I never mentioned race. I addressed the issues mostly in the same terms as other conservatives did. But when I do bring up race, I bring it up, and I don’t back away from it. That’s what you call being obsessed.

Also, you suggest that my focus on race prevents me from understanding Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Through hundreds of articles and blog entries on the Islam problem, I have never (or virtually never) discussed it in racial terms. In fact, I’ve strongly criticized the truly race-preoccupied Steve Sailer who understands the Islam problem in terms of genetics (i.e., low racial IQ exacerbated by cousin marriage) rather than in terms of the sacred writings, doctrines, and teachings of Islam, a subject he has utterly ignored (as he ignores all civilizational and religious questions) because it doesn’t fit his interest in bio-diversity.

Islam is sui generis. I strongly recommend that the Islam problem be dealt with apart from the Third-World immigration problem generally. Both need to be dealt with, but they need to be dealt with in different terms.

Andrew E. writes:

Mr. Chiarello mentions that the University of Virginia was forced to advise, mainly female, students to travel around the campus in pairs at night. I remember this even when I first arrived there ten years ago. One other very telling aspect to this is what would occur on a daily basis at the main dining hall, Newcomb Hall. During the lunchtime rush hour at Newcomb, one could expect to wait in line for five or ten minutes before swiping your card and entering the kitchen. But during that five or ten minutes, there could be maybe two dozen or more students who would skip right the front without waiting. These students were always black, never non-black. Everyone in line noticed this happening but very rarely said anything to them, including myself, and when they did it never did much good. The cafeteria workers were mostly local residents who were also black and were happy to let their brothers in first. You could not find ONE person from my graduating class who would deny or be unaware of this regular occurrence, nor deny the stark racial aspect to it. From time to time, me and my, mostly non-white, friends would sit in the back of the cafeteria where the black students sat, just to mix things up. But it was obvious that we inhabited two completely separate universes.

Clark Coleman writes:

Andrew E. wrote: “we were not freshmen but ‘first years,’ not sophomores but ‘second years,’ to remain gender neutral I suppose …”

This terminology dates back to the 19th century and has nothing to do with gender neutrality, as the University of Virginia was all-male until female graduate students were admitted in 1920 and undergraduates in 1969-1970.

I have been here at Virginia since 1989 and the “program to encourage interracial dating” escaped my attention. That does not mean that it never existed, but it would be good if Mr. Chiarello would provide documentation or a link before this whole thread becomes an “urban rumor” mill.

Andrew E. writes:

Thanks to Clark Coleman for correcting me. I had not known that and it’s heartening to learn. Though I suppose my ignorance can be excused because we first years learned of this terminology in the middle of the same assembly, taking place several days before classes started, in which student actors acted out skits with themes, not remotely about the University’s grand history or traditions, but about the wonderful diversity of the incoming class and encouraging us to embrace our differences and learn from one another. Days later at the opening convocation the President would make a point of telling the Class of ‘01 how proud the University was that women had displaced men as the majority so quickly after women were first admitted as undergraduates.

As I said, I don’t recall a formal interracial dating seminar while I attended but I do recall several informal efforts by student government to encourage more mixing. What I know is that UVA proudly practiced affirmative action, creating massive self-segregation among the student body which was often a source of great embarrassment for the school administration. Given my experience at Virginia, if the school had instituted a seminar to encourage interracial dating, it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

I apologize for taking the thread off course.

Vincent C. writes:

I perfectly understand and agree with Mr. Coleman’s suggestion that I avoid expanding the “urban rumor” mill by documenting my comments about the University of Virginia’s program to “encourage inter-racial dating.” The sources were two:

a. a news account on a local station—WMAL -;

b. an brief written account in either The Washington Post or The Washington Times.

I shall do my utmost to see if I can hunt down the sources.

Admittedly, the word “program” was mine, but the imprimatur for the goals of the project was, unquestionably, the university’s.

Might I suggest that, since Mr. Coleman is ensconced in Charlottesville, he approach the University’s office where affirmative action programs are devised, and ask them directly?

I would very much like to hear what they say about this matter.

Alan Levine replies to LA:

Would not think of contesting the idea that conservative whites are the only group that can lead on this issue! Who else would? But, as usual, you overstate. I think this is a reflection of an obsession, when you seem to find it very difficult to imagine blacks being on the same side as whites in defending America. God knows there is enough hostility, and for that matter obsessive self-involvement, by blacks, without exaggerating it, as you insist on doing.

Vincent C. writes:

Apparently, Mr. Levine is unaware of the fact that, although individual Blacks are anti-immigrant, Black elected officials in the US Congress have demonstrated fierce resistance to any proposal that allows stronger enforcement of current immigration law. There is no better—and telling—example of that posturing than the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus. All one need to do is review their past and present stance to see the disconnect between anti-illegal sentiments by many individuals, and no follow up by the overwhelming number of elected Black officials. I have been on any number of picket lines protesting amnesty to illegal aliens, and noted the disparity between the rank-and-file Black worker, and their elected officials, despite what has been shown time and time again: Blacks are more negatively affected economically by the presence of illegal aliens than any other group in the country.

But it is not only at the Federal level that such indifference is noted. Along with members of my organization—the American National Council for Immigration Reform (ANCIR)—I have seen similar attitudes by Black elected officials in the Virginia state legislature as well. As to the local level, despite the fact that Washington D.C. is nearly 70% Black, Mayor Adrian Fenty, who is half-Black, fiercely opposes tighter immigration control, and has sought to keep the District of Columbia a “sanctuary city.” LA’s claim that in opposing illegal immigration Blacks—individually and collectively—would have to work with whites, may have more than a kernel of truth. I should also point out that a member of ANCIR has been working with a group of Blacks within the nation’s capital to put pressure on their elected officials, but little of note has emerged.

My sense is that the Black leadership will begin to recognize the baleful impact of illegal aliens once, after an amnesty, they are voted out of office.

LA writes:

Mr. Levine writes:

“I think this is a reflection of an obsession, when you seem to find it very difficult to imagine blacks being on the same side as whites in defending America.”

As has been pointed out, organized and political black America will never side with white conservatives on immigration. The fact that individual blacks would do so tells us nothing. What counts politically about a people is how they manifest themselves politically. Black Americans manifest themselves political through their elected leaders. The clearest expression of political black America is the Black Congressional Caucus. Need I say more?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 02, 2008 06:12 PM | Send