2007 June 17 Sunday
Hispanic Political Support Contingent On Support For Lawbreakers?

Lawrence Auster argues if opposition to illegal immigration is seen by Hispanics as anti-Hispanic then they are putting their loyalty to their group ahead of loyalty to the United States. (my bold emphasis added)

The pro-legalization Republicans keep saying that if the Republican party doesn't support the legalization of illegals, Hispanics will take that as an insult to Hispanics and never vote Republican again, dooming the GOP. The pro-legalization Republicans don't realize what they are saying. They are saying that the U.S. Hispanics (meaning legal Hispanic immigrants and their descendants) are people who demand the legalization of Hispanic lawbreakers as a condition of giving a party their political support--they are saying that U.S. Hispanics are people who regard as "anti-Hispanic" any failure by the U.S. political system to support the illegal immigration of Hispanics and the resulting destruction of our laws and sovereignty.

In short, the strongest supporters of large-scale Hispanic immigration, including Hispanics themselves, are saying that Hispanics are a deeply ethnocentric group that is hostile to the laws and sovereignty of the United States. That being the case, why should we admit any more Hispanic immigrants into this country?

Why should we put them ahead of our own interests? This is the part I do not get. Why should I sacrifice the interests of citizens for the interests of an ethnic group many of whose members put the interests of their ethnicity ahead of the interests of the rest of us?

Imagine a future in which the United States fragments by ethnicity like Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, and the UCLA graduation ceremonies.

Commencement weekend is hard to plan at the University of California, Los Angeles. The university now has so many separate identity-group graduations that scheduling them not to conflict with one another is a challenge. The women’s studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, “Raza,” is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later.

Planning was easier before a new crop of ethnic groups pushed for inclusion. Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian–Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements, and some talk of a Cambodian one in the future. Years ago, UCLA sponsored an Iranian graduation, but the school’s commencement office couldn’t tell me if the event was still around. The entire Middle East may yet be a fertile source for UCLA commencements.

I've had enough Balkanization already. I say build a really big wall on the US border with Mexico, deport all the illegal aliens, way scale back legal immigration, and wait a few generations for assimilation. If assimilation still doesn't happen then pay the unassimilated to leave.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 June 17 06:45 PM  Immigration Societal Decay

Anon said at June 17, 2007 9:23 PM:

Go read Thomas Chittum's work about the balkanization and break up of the US into racial/ethnic groups. Civil War 2 used to be online, but I guess you need to buy it now. Not only do the hispanics support criminals, but of course the blacks do as well. Better buy a gun.

Lawrence Auster said at June 17, 2007 10:33 PM:

Thanks to Mr. Parker for posting my argument about the real meaning of the Hispanic demand for the legalization of their illegal co-ethnics. The fact that Republicans say with a straight face that we must legalize Hispanic illegals or else Hispanic legals will be angry at us, and that no one has noticed what a bizarre thing this is to say and what it really tells us about Hispanics, is an index of how completely we've lost any normal sense of American identity and pride.

If the position of Hispanics is that they will hold it personally against us if we don't legalize all Hispanic illegals, then they are saying that they are enemies of this country. But, as with Islam, we don't want to notice this fact about Hispanics, because if we did, the entire liberal construction of the world would collapse. First, we would have to acknowledge that the Other really is the Other and does not mean us well, and, second, we would have to commence guarding ourselves against that Other instead of opening our arms to him, which would mean, three, giving up liberalism, which would mean, four, that we become evil according to our own liberal standards. Rather than become evil (i.e. non-liberal), most liberals would rather let America be destroyed.

And I think something like that is happening now in the push for the Bush-Kennedy-McCain bill.

Kenelm Digby said at June 18, 2007 5:08 AM:

I am afraid the 'ethnic fragmentation' of the USA is an inevitability.
Not wishing to pontificate too much, the USA is a young nation barely 200 years old - compare and contrast this to the fate of the nations of Europe which in the past 2000 years have been riven by wars, invasions, boundary changes, whole population exchanges and even changes of language.
Just consider for one moment the region known as Asia Minor - modern Turkey - which was *the* crucible of ancient civilisation and the struggles for supremacy there between Hittites, Lydians,Armenians,Medes, Persians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans etc and finally the Turks who imposed their own culture and religion on that part of world only in very recent historical time.
Put bluntly, the USA is definitely not the nation today that the founding fathers hoped for ie a refined nation taking at as its core value the highest ideals of the European enlightenment.
Why do Americans think they are immune from the great sweeps of history that formed other nations?

dchamil said at June 18, 2007 6:55 AM:

Kenelm Digby mentions Asia Minor, now Turkey. Many times in Presbyterian church the sermon has been about the remarks of Paul in his epistles to the colonies of Greeks and Christians which existed there in the time of Christ. But the minister never mentions what happened to these colonies. Now they are all gone in Muslim Turkey, right along with the conversion of the Christian church Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

John S Bolton said at June 19, 2007 1:06 AM:

We may also have a case of openness-valorization trying to sound pragmatic.
You have to keep being open to hostiles regardless, since one day, they will remember that
laws had treated them as undesirable outsiders?
Why don't they vote 95% democratic now then, since Operation Wetback
mostly removed their people?
The Hispanic vote has been moving steadily away from the Republicans, for decades, even as the Republican
policies have become more welcoming to them, even illegals.
Nihilism may sometimes wish to cover itself in the camouflage of pretended pragmatic concerns.
If, the more hostile a population is, the more we're expected to cater to them in their
most unreasonable demands, this will elicit more and worse hostility from them,
and that intensification of the conflicts is unlikely to be
unanticipated and undesired, by those who may be both nihlistic liberals, and servitors of power-greed, who know how power is won.

John S Bolton said at June 19, 2007 1:35 AM:

One could notice also that the Hispanics-will-be-made-into-permanent-hostiles/liberal voters
projection is a completely cynical one:
it makes no reference to ideals, cannot seem to conceive of ideological loyalty ever going above
ethnic/racial ones,
cannot seem to even imagine that there could exist a Latino anti-communist,
and asks us to dissemble in the manner of Macchiavelli,
as if to say-'think what you want of them, just don't let them see it'.
No doubt there are those on the moderate left and right who are
indeed believers in the supposedly superior ideal nature of always wanting more brotherhood more
equality and more anti-discrimination, but the never-insult-the-Hispanics
suggestion presents itself as pragmatic wisdom of street-level politics.
Their argument is not a rational one; it would lead, as said, to the opposite conclusion,
than that we need vastly more such ethnic bloc voters.
The underlying feeling is, more like, don't make us represent only the white voters;
give us latitude to be champions of minorities, regardless of how bad this may be,
we're afraid to stand up to leftist smears, we don't know how to, and don't want to learn.

Brent Lane said at June 19, 2007 9:08 PM:

To answer K. Digby's query above:

"Why do Americans think they are immune from the great sweeps of history that formed other nations?"

I must ask a question in return: if we think that, by taking preventative action, we can avoid the societally destructive aspects of the 'great sweeps of history' that threaten to end what we used to proudly call "the American Experiment", why shouldn't we try to do so?

In addition, don't you think the numerous ethnic groups that you mentioned who once occupied Asia Minor would have preferred taking similar action to prevent the Turks from 'imposing their own culture and religion' and, in the process, driving them out (or killing them off) if they had the ability to do so?

As an Anglo-American, I think it is definitely in my own personal best interest (as well as that of my daughters) to do preserve the USA in its present form. The 'great sweeps of history that formed other nations' are only 'inevitable' if the people chose to allow them to happen.

Kenelm Digby said at June 20, 2007 5:19 AM:

Brent Lane,
I fully agree with you that the toughest measures possible should be taken to preserve the 'American Experiment' in the face of the overwhelming hostility of those who actually wield power ie 'the political class' and most of the mainstream media and academia.
My point is that taking an historical point of view, it is very rare for kingdoms and empires - and even ethnicities as self-defined - to actually persist in the 'long run'.
Possibly, the only exception to this rule is China, which came within an ace of being reduced to a colony by the main European powers and Japan in the 19th century (as an aside why the Whites of the World lost their nerve and did not permanently reduce the entire colored world to the status of subjects as they were on course in doing - and had the military and economic might, up till about 1900, is a different story).

John S Bolton said at June 21, 2007 11:34 PM:

Possibly because they were already doing too much of that, and acquiring too many imperial subjects.
If more countries had been left in the independent condition of Ethiopia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Haiti,
and so on, Britain and France would be closer economically to the US and Switzerland,
and would have lost no prestige in so doing.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©