How to reply to the OpenBordersBots
Mike N. writes:
I sent your recent posting, “Why liberals are now free to talk about the browning of America, but conservatives are not,” to several friends of mine, and this is one of the replies I received:
I wouldn’t be so dire. The GOP is in trouble, but the fact that they even stood a chance with an unpopular 2 term President and a terrible economy against a great orator is more than a silver lining. The Republicans simply need to get back to their lost roots of fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and free (but not too free) markets.
I am sure you economists have name for the principle wherein a person of a certain economic class presumes he will one day be in a higher class…it is the reason even lower-middle class people don’t necessarily want higher taxes for the upper-middle class…because they assume they will be there soon. The Republicans use to use that phenomenon well.
I think they can do the same with nonwhite immigration…they simply need a message that conveys that low taxes and pro-business values are more likely to reward hard work in the end then subsidies, handouts, and government programs. Convince Hispanics that their dream of starting a small business and passing on a better wealth foundation to their first-generation American children is better served by Republican principles.
P.S. The above obviously means the Republicans will have to stop demonizing immigrants, illegal or otherwise…time to swallow that pill.
[end of letter]
The assumption—based on zero historical evidence or logic—is that Republicans CAN win the votes of nonwhite immigrants. Also, I notice that ANY opposition to illegal immigration or to mass immigration is always called “demonizing immigrants.” Any suggestions?
LA replies:
Your friend said:
“The above obviously means the Republicans will have to stop demonizing immigrants, illegal or otherwise…time to swallow that pill.”
What can I say? You have to call this person’s attention to the amazing and appalling thing he’s saying. You have to make him aware of his premises and how wrong they are.
When the American people began letting in large-scale Hispanic immigration, were they told that in the future, they, the American people, would be required to approve of all illegal Hispanic immigration, and, furthermore, that if they opposed this mass illegal invasion of our country, they would be accused of “demonizing” Hispanics and told that they must shut up, because if they didn’t, Hispanics would turn away from the GOP, dooming the GOP to electoral defeat?
If these conditions had been set out at the beginning, if we were told that the legal Hispanic immigrants would demand our complete surrender to illegal Hispanic immigration, would America have approved of ANY Hispanic immigration?
Also say:
If these nonwhite immigrants that you speak of are so eager to become good American citizens if given the chance, then why are they demanding that we accept the illegal immigration of their co-ethnics? They don’t sound like potential good citizens to me. They sound like a hostile force.
Then ask him this:
As there any way that a person can call for the end of illegal immigration without being seen as “demonizing” illegal immigrants, i.e. without being seen as engaging in morally wrong or racist behavior? Or is ANY criticism of illegal immigration “demonizing,” i.e., immoral?
If no disagreement with illegal immigration is allowed, then what you’re saying is that on one the biggest issues facing our country, affecting our whole future as a country, NO DEBATE IS ALLOWED. ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE CAN BE HEARD—YOUR SIDE. And if that’s what you believe, you don’t believe in a free, self-governing country. You believe in a dictatorship.
- end of initial entry -
November 13
Mark Jaws writes:
Excellent response to Openbordersbots. Absolutely superb.
If only we could transplant your brain and voice into my body—we’d be The One whom we have been waiting for.
LA replies:
That’s really funny!
Mark Jaws replies:
Humor, is the great disarmer. If only Pat Buchanan had been blessed with a sense of humor or had a Jewish writer providing him with some funny zingers.
LA replies:
Seriously, what concerns me is that the kind of answer I supplied to Michael N. should not be seen as requiring some unusual ability. If people on our side cannot see instantly the falseness of the liberal arguments and be able to come right back at them and put the liberals on the defensive, then we are finished. We are finished. There was nothing in what I said that should be as out of reach of the average intelligent immigration restrictionist. To anyone reading this: if you ever have had something like this said to you for opposing illegal immigration, and in response you went the defensive, or went silent, then you haven’t done the basic reading and thinking that would equip you with the arguments you need to participate in this debate. This is not rocket science. This is a matter of ordinary thinking abilities.
On a deeper level, the problem is not conservatives’ lack of thought, but their lack of effective belief in the legitimacy of our country, and in the legitimacy of basic morality, as the ground on which they stand. The liberal statement that we must stop “demonizing” illegal aliens is an outrage against our country, against the rule of law, against the most basic moral reasoning. Yet instead of becoming indignant at this outrage and putting the liberals on the defensive for saying such a thing, our side goes passive, doesn’t know what to say. As long as that remains the case, we are finished.
Mark Jaws writes:
Others say it, but you say it so much better. I am good in voicing these concerns, but you are excellent.
If you could have attended the public forum here in Stafford County earlier this year (see the sixth paragraph) you would have heard passionate and articulate defenses of our country and culture. The problem is that absent such events, we have no venue to coalesce and to raise our voices. With too few exceptions, the GOP has completely abandoned us—which is why I frequently express such vitriol against proponents of the Soft Right, such as Daniel Pipes and David Frum.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 12, 2008 01:37 PM | Send