“Why is Romney Losing? Because Immigration Is Electing A New People”

And the Republican establishment is as clueless as ever that their support for the browning of America via non-European immigration spells the death of their party and a socialist, impoverished future for the country.

See Peter Bradley’s important article at Vdare.

Then see my brief 1996 article in the Social Contract which showed how the Republicans could avoid their doom—advice that was of course ignored.

* * *

But here is a possible silver lining. People deeply committed to a lie—as American mainstream conservatives are deeply committed to the liberal ideology of non-discrimination, mass non-European immigration, and multiracialism—will only see the truth when they have been broken. If Obama wins re-election, with the catastrophe that will mean for the country, and if it’s understood that America’s immigration-fed demographic changes sealed his re-election, that might finally break the conservatives. They will be in such pain and suffering that they might finally drop their arrogance and their ideology and recognize that the immigration they’ve supported for all these decades has been the cause of their ruin and the country’s.

The fact that superficial Republican cheerleader Ann Coulter, after 18 years as a nationally known columnist, has for the first time written a column criticizing our legal immigration policy, and on the ground that it is helping Obama win the election, could be a harbinger of a shift of view among conservatives generally—the same shift for which we restrictionists have been hoping for decades. If it does happen, it will prove that when people subscribe with their whole being to a falsehood, only disaster, only unbearable loss and pain, can change their minds.

- end of initial entry -

Malcolm Pollack writes:

Here is Buchanan’s article about this the other day.

James P. writes:

If conservatives suddenly see the truth after Obama’s re-election—so what? What can they possibly advocate in order to reverse the demographic changes that brought about their political ruin as well as the nation’s ruin? If they cannot elect a milquetoast moderate like Romney, how can they expect to elect someone who will do anything effective to rescue them from disaster? We can hardly expect the immigrants to vote for their own expulsion from the country.

My view of Ann Coulter’s column is that she is not motivated by principle but by the partisan needs of the moment. I suspect that if Romney is elected, she and other conservatives will return to their clueless policy of support for immigration. The demographic catastrophe will continue, and the conservatives will be broken by electoral defeat in 2016 rather than 2012.

Alexis Zarkov writes:

I’m not sure Romney is “losing,” but if he is, don’t put the onus on immigration. This Vdare article by Peter Brimelow sets the record straight: it’s the white vote, and the idiotic GOP leadership. I think Texas qualifies as the most of the red states, and California must be the bluest of the blue states. Is that because California has more Hispanic voters than Texas? No. Brimelow gives us the numbers. He says:

The Hispanic share of the California electorate is still fairly modest: 22 percent in 2010. The white electorate is nearly three times larger (61 percent.) For comparison, whites account for merely 63 percent of the Texas electorate and 65 percent in Alabama. But both are GOP strongholds.

Those numbers (they need checking) are a real eye opener. They tell us that Democrats win elections in California, and Republicans win in Texas because of the way white people vote, not because California has more Hispanics. Yet the Romney campaign has “outreach programs” aimed at Asians and Hispanics, and no programs targeting the white vote. Do they really think they can outbid the Democrats in the wealth transference game? Not a chance. Hispanics are far more concerned about welfare benefits than immigration. That’s the primary reason they vote for Democrats. The stupid party remains stupid.

I agree that immigration, both legal and illegal, is very important. Eventually the flood of Third World immigrants will transform America, and put the left permanently in power. However for election 2012, the real action is the white vote, and this is where the GOP must put its effort.

Max P. writes:

Today you posted, “”Why is Romney Losing? Because Immigration Is Electing A New People,” and linked to a story at VDare by Peter Bradley.

To reinforce what Mr. Bradley wrote, Rasmussen released a new poll on July 31, 2012, that shows Romney leading among white voters 56 percent to 35 percent. That is a whopping 21 percent lead.

If this were 1984, it would be another Reagan 49-state landslide. But this is 2012, and the effects of the 1965 Immigration Act are now too big to ignore. Instead of looking ahead at a landslide victory, Romney is in serious jeopardy of losing. It is incredible to think that a candidate with such a commanding lead among white voters is at best in a race too close to call. Unless Romney can obtain 60 percent or more of the white vote, he probably has no chance.

I also find it ironic that whites are the only group the mainstream media criticizes for supposedly voting as a bloc. Yet if white voters voted in the same patterns as blacks and other minorities, the Democrats would never have a chance. A white electorate that went 90 percent for the Republicans would guarantee a Republican victory. It is precisely because whites are open to debate and do not vote as a racial bloc that the United States even has competitive elections. Of course to acknowledge this would require casting aspersions onto certain minority groups that might indicate they are not ready to participate in a true democratic forum. And as the Greek Olympian discovered earlier this week, that is simply not allowed.

Robert B. writes:

LA said:

“They will be in such pain and suffering that they might finally drop their arrogance and their ideology and recognize that the immigration they’ve supported for all these decades has been the cause of their ruin and the country’s.”

Naaa. Based upon their previous behavior and reasoning, they will attribute the loss to not having pandered to the “Hispanics” enough. They will then call for enacting the so called “Dream Act.” The Republican Party has proven itself to be a willing partner in America’s death spiral. Just think of all the opportunities they had with a Republican in the White House to dismantle the Welfare State by adhering to the Republican Party planks. And yet, under Bush, they not only ignored such planks as the abolishment of the Education Department, they grew the Education Department and its power with No Child left Behind.

James R. writes:

Here also is Peter Brimelow’s 1997 National Review article on the subject.

I was a moderate liberal at the time and that article had a significant influence on how I viewed immigration and its use as a weapon to reshape the country. Before that article my outlook was still largely akin to that of Ben Wattenburg’s “The First Universal Nation.” After it, I understood more clearly that unchecked mass immigration plus official multiculturalism were the hammer and anvil being used to transform America without asking or wanting the consent of the current inhabitants—and done by both wings of the political establishment (Something also highlighted in this remarkable BBC documentary—remarkable because it aired on the BBC, and relatively recently). As I still had some liberal inclinations, Brimelow’s article helped highlight how mass immigration of unskilled labour was a major source of many of the problems that liberals otherwise decried (such as lagging incomes among lower-income Americans, by increasing the supply of unskilled labour, and also failure to modernize in many economic sectors, because they could just rely upon cheep labour).

I wish I had kept that NR issue; I’d scan the cover myself. As it is, I haven’t been able to find the cover image online.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 01, 2012 10:25 AM | Send