What Ann Coulter and the GOP Dare Not Say About Immigration

Selwyn Duke, Canada Free Press, January 4, 2012

In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time. She writes that if we fail at halting it, “the country will be changed permanently.” She continues:

Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed. Even Supreme Court justices eventually die.

But capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back.

She expands on this later in the piece:

[W]e ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California. Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore.…If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives—one pro-life and one pro-choice—can’t win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it’s buenas noches, muchachos.

Coulter is, of course, right—but she only dare hint at the real problem. The fact is that halting illegal migration will do nothing to forestall the socialist electoral shift to which she refers.

Question: Do you really think the demographic earthquake that turned the Golden State blue was mainly the result of illegal migration?

Or do you think that the legal variety might have had something to do with it?

There certainly are a few differences between legal immigration and illegal migration. For instance, we can’t know if someone sneaking into our country is a criminal, a terrorist or is carrying a disease. But the reality is that in most respects illegal migration is not a separate and distinct problem.

It is an exacerbation of the problem.

Because demographically speaking, legal immigration and illegal migration are virtually identical. Most all illegal migrants hail from the Third World and Asia, and—owing to the Immigration Act of 1965 (Ted Kennedy’s handiwork)—85 percent of legal immigrants do as well.

In other words, yes, adding illegal migrants into the mix will help the statists take their California dreamin’ nationwide more quickly, but it will happen regardless unless we change our suicidal immigration model. So it really doesn’t matter if we “capitulate” on illegal migration or not, because we capitulated on the legalized version of it a long time ago. Now we’re only deciding whether Western civilization in the U.S. will get a death by 100 demographic cuts or 1000.

To be fair, Ann Coulter at least made passing mention of this reality when she slipped into her piece that “Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate [emphasis added]….” Yet with the exception of Pat Buchanan, yours truly and a few others, this is an area where you’re more likely to hear the truth from leftist commentators—when they’re licking their chops over how successful they’ve been at importing their voters. Just consider, for instance, a 2011 NPR piece in which Mara Liasson cites a study by Ruy Teixeira at liberal feel tank Center for American Progress and writes:

Recent surges in the number of Hispanics in Arizona and Georgia could make those states potentially friendlier to Democratic candidates as well next year [2012]. Teixeira thinks similar population shifts could make holding on to Pennsylvania, where the president campaigned Wednesday, a little bit easier.

And if you think it’ll be a bit easier in 2012, wait till you see 2022.

And 2032 and 2042? Well, Orwell’s calling.

{snip}

But what does it profit a nation to absorb the world but to lose its soul?

The fact is that the immigration debate is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of civilization we’re going to be. For the people make the culture—not the other way around—and the culture makes the government. {snip}

{snip}

To only argue against amnesty is to fight for a half-measure—one that, ultimately, will still leave your children America dreamin’ on a California day.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    You want to solve this immigration problem?  You’re not going to be able to do it without taking a few bruises along the way!

    1) Deport the illegal foreigners already here, including the ones in jail.

    2) Charge their native countries for their welfare and jail costs

    3) Bring the troops back home from Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc., and fortify the southern frontier with Mexico.

    Yes, they’re going to call you a racist.  But this will solve the country’s economic problems in a few years.

    Think of how many BILLIONS of dollars we can save by emptying the prisons out by sending these people to the other side of the border.  Think of how many BILLIONS could be saved by ending their welfare checks.

    What to do when they get there?  Who cares?  That’s the Mexican government’s problem.

    • Please add to your list…
      Electing politicians with a back bone, who will put the sovereignty and welfare of the United States before that of mexico and their illegal invading la raza.

      • Anonymous

        Electing politicians never changed much.

        Seriously, if this is Romney vs Obama in 2012 the white race is doomed.  The only substantive difference between Romney and Obama is the party sticker.

        Ron Paul or 3rd party for me.  I’ve become disgusted with the Republicans.

        • Anonymous

          Same here. Republicans are useless and are no better than the Dems when it comes to pandering to whoever or whatever “group” of people that will keep them in power. Surely the fools can see that as White America diminishes, so does their relevance and political power. Even if they had control  of all branches of government, they would do not a thing to try and reverse this trend. They just don’t have the courage. At this rate, I’d say we will be hard pressed to find a White politician in 30 or 40 years.

        • Anonymous

          I love Ron Paul, truly a great man. But the fact is, one man will never right this listing ship.

          To turn things around in this country, there would have to be major structural changes to how this country is run. The constitution would need to be amended many times………fat chance on that one.

          Anything short of very clear constitutional changes………….and yeah, the creepy politicians will find ways to push their filth.

    • “….call you a racist”.

      I am a racist.

    • Anonymous

      Nice theory on how to clean up the problem.

      Too  bad we have a political system that will never allow that to happen in its current form.

  • Anonymous

    god, somebody has finally put into words. Illegal immigration is only half of the problem. If we do not reverse our open immigration laws very soon, there will be no more America.

    • Anonymous

      Well, that ship has sailed, the US of Ameritard is done for.

  • To be honest, I’m actually kind of impressed that Ann Coulter mentioned legal immigration at all. She has always distanced herself from any kind of discussions on race, and in fact, occasionally she seems to pander to blacks in a futile effort to woo them to the Republican Party. From what I saw, she opposed illegal immigration on a purely “legal” point, stressing their need to become “legal.” Apparently now she is beginning to see the true upcoming disaster, although, as the article mentioned, she dares not go into further detail.

    It’s absurd to hear those (especially the current crop of GOP presidential candidates) rattle against illegal immigration but then quickly qualify that they’d have no problem if these people came in legally, or that we need more legal immigration. Obviously, those smokescreens will do nothing to solve the looming demographic crisis.

    I don’t see anyone coming out to publicly oppose massive legal immigration. Even though most here are at least somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul, he has never really railed against mass legal immigration either, unless referring to some vague point on the environment.

    The only way I can see opposition to legal immigration arise on a mass scale is when we see the consequences of it in the southwest and in Texas.

    • Anonymous

      Coulter does frequently pander to blacks.  According to her, last summer’s riots in England were not about race but about the economy.  According to the CONservatives, third world immigrants only need a tax cut and school choice/vouchers.  In a few years, they’ll be just like you and me.  But like you wrote, she did let slip the word legal.  Mark Levin  and Sean Hannity will have to have a talk with her.

      • Anonymous

        All of the Phonycons……Medved, Hannity, Hewitt, Levin, Limbaugh…etc, etc……..grovel at the alter of Urban Americans.

  • To be honest, I’m actually kind of impressed that Ann Coulter mentioned legal immigration at all. She has always distanced herself from any kind of discussions on race, and in fact, occasionally she seems to pander to blacks in a futile effort to woo them to the Republican Party. From what I saw, she opposed illegal immigration on a purely “legal” point, stressing their need to become “legal.” Apparently now she is beginning to see the true upcoming disaster, although, as the article mentioned, she dares not go into further detail.

    It’s absurd to hear those (especially the current crop of GOP presidential candidates) rattle against illegal immigration but then quickly qualify that they’d have no problem if these people came in legally, or that we need more legal immigration. Obviously, those smokescreens will do nothing to solve the looming demographic crisis.

    I don’t see anyone coming out to publicly oppose massive legal immigration. Even though most here are at least somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul, he has never really railed against mass legal immigration either, unless referring to some vague point on the environment.

    The only way I can see opposition to legal immigration arise on a mass scale is when we see the consequences of it in the southwest and in Texas.

    • redfeathers, Dario Gangliano

      I always sensed the pandering ……. but thought maybe I was just imagining it. Thanks for confirming.

  • wmarkw

    There’s all the difference in the world between legal and illegal immigrants.
    The legal ones were selected by our immigration service for their ability to contribute skills or money to our economy.
    The illegal ones were self-selected for being unable to get a job in their homeland for LACK of skills.
    Legal immigrants have college degrees.  Illegal ones are high school dropouts.

    There is ALWAYS, of course, the caveat that our immigration policy has to be tied to the needs of our labor market.  When the tech economy busted, it was inexusable to keep importing Hindu-1B visas while Silicon Valley was brimming with unemployed American tech workers.  And under our current situation, we shouldn’t really be importing anyone.

    But legal Japanese and Korean immigrants are not ruining California.

    • Ernest

      “”The legal ones were selected by our immigration service for their ability to contribute skills or money to our economy.””

      That may have been true at some point in our history but today what a immigrant can contribute is many times a secondary consideration at best. Please see  ‘diversity’ visa, or Family reunification & chain migration  or refugee resettlement etc

    • Anonymous

      You are mistaken about legal immigrants being selected for their ability to contribute skills or money.  Come to New York.  You are SO wrong.

      • Or California…we have entire ethnic enclaves
        made up of these so called “contributing legal immigrants.” You will
        not hear a word of English spoken and virtually all signage for blocks is in
        Korean and Vietnamese. Plenty of spanish as well.

        The fact remains that the
        1965 Hart-Cellar Act has so upset the racial balance in this country, that it
        must be overturned immediately if we hope to stem the tide of this massive
        third-world brown immigration to this country.

        When they say this
        country was “made from immigrants” I always reply they are exactly
        right! This country was made up of immigrants…White European immigrants until
        1965 when Hart-Cellar was enacted, thereby substantially reducing White
        European immigration in favor of 
        third-world browns.

        The irrevocable damage of the Hart-Cellar Act is
        coming home to roost!

        • Anonymous

          As regards the elderly Orientals who come here to settle, it’s a well-known fact that they collect SSI benefits while living with extended family.  Those payments can buy a pretty decent car after a few years.  Someone should tell these people:  America isn’t a giant retirement village.  

    • Anonymous

      You are mistaken about legal immigrants being selected for their ability to contribute skills or money.  Come to New York.  You are SO wrong.

    • Anonymous

      You are mistaken about legal immigrants being selected for their ability to contribute skills or money.  Come to New York.  You are SO wrong.

      • Anonymous

        I’m sorry about the multiple posting.  I was getting an error message and tried a few times.

    • Anonymous

      The legal ones were selected by our immigration service for their ability to contribute skills or money to our economy.
      ________

      Wrong, only 10% are admitted because of their talents. The rest come over based on family reunification, refugee status or the visa lottery.

    • Anonymous

      Tell that to all of the Somali Muslims we are importing into this once fine country.

  • To be honest, I’m actually kind of impressed that Ann Coulter mentioned legal immigration at all. She has always distanced herself from any kind of discussions on race, and in fact, occasionally she seems to pander to blacks in a futile effort to woo them to the Republican Party. From what I saw, she opposed illegal immigration on a purely “legal” point, stressing their need to become “legal.” Apparently now she is beginning to see the true upcoming disaster, although, as the article mentioned, she dares not go into further detail.
     
    It’s absurd to hear those (especially the current crop of GOP presidential candidates) rattle against illegal immigration but then quickly qualify that they’d have no problem if these people came in legally, or that we need more legal immigration. Obviously, those smokescreens will do nothing to solve the looming demographic crisis.
     
    I don’t see anyone coming out to publicly oppose massive legal immigration. Even though most here are at least somewhat sympathetic to Ron Paul, he has never really railed against mass legal immigration either, unless referring to some vague point on the environment.
     
    The only way I can see opposition to legal immigration arise on a mass scale is when we see the consequences of it in the southwest and in Texas.

  • Anonymous

    This is not to be construed as a rebuttal to those who hold up immigration as one of the greatest threats to our people, because it surely is a major issue, but the fact is we could ban every non-White from our shores for 100 years and it’s not going to save us if we can’t get our young people to get married, stay married, and raise stable families. 
     
    My generation, the Millennials, seem to be full of excuses as to how they can’t afford to raise kids because of taxation, student loans, currency debasement, I’ve heard them all.  Doesn’t stop them from splurging on snob Apple electronics, going on multiple trips a year and taking out credit to buy new Audis though.  I’m not saying it’s easy; my wife and I had to give up a lot of wants and even one or two needs to make this work, but the point is we’re making it work.  You can too.  You should.
     
    It is job one for our people.  Immigration will work itself out when they stop making it so easy to get off the boat and become a deadbeat.  Immigration, both legal and illegal, is a response to government incentives.  When the incentives go away, so will the immigrants.  But if we’re not working on extending our progeny for that immigrant-free future, what difference does it make?

    • wmarkw

      I disagree that we need to increase our birth rate, even without immigration.
      Improved technology can keep our older population living just fine, even with fewer caretakers among the younger.

      That said, I agree that conservatism should be taking stronger steps to provide the economic base for our young people to practice values.  To many conservatives, the years 1945-65 were a kind of golden era, when
      people had family and community values, as evidenced by a record
      marriage rate and baby boom.  But they decry the economic conditions of
      the time, for its strong unions and job security.  They don’t seem to
      accept that the latter empowered the former, because having a reasonable
      expectation of steady income is a prerequisite to forming a family. 
      The free agent economy they admire so much, leads to free agent family
      and community values, which they hate. Conservatism needs to decide if family values are important enough to design our economy to encourage them.  Or if values are just a tool to minimize the societal cost of pro-wealthy economics.

      • Anonymous

        Family values are the absolute bedrock of our society.  All other things stem from this, the economy included.  A nation with lousy family values produces an economy where there is no trust and corruption is rampant.  If someone will cheat his own family how do you expect him to honor his contract with you?

        The young are the future, not the old.  So what if we can develop the technology to keep people alive for 150 years; what use are they going to be when plumbing needs repair, factories need workers, rifles need toting to defend our lands?

        We absolutely must increase our birth rate.  Our future depends on it.  Human capital is the most valuable to us at this time.

        Lastly…please everyone here disabuse yourselves of the notion that the post-WWII economy is the benchmark of what our country’s economy is supposed to be.  That economy was an aberration produced by the fact of being the only industrialized country on the face of the earth with an economy that wasn’t located in a war zone.  Also the economy was in the toilet from roughly 1930-1945; it was inevitable there would be a boom to mirror this protracted period of stagnation.

        During this time period, Boeing built tens of thousands of bombers.  That is just one defense contractor.  There were hundreds if not thousands producing war material paid for with debased currency and tax remittances extracted from the populace under the implicit threat of force.  The Keynesian illusion of prosperity bought with debt was just that, an illusion.  The chickens finally came home to roost after Vietnam.  They never really left.

        We’re paying for the consequences of over 50 years of borrowing against the future.  I don’t look back on the days that made this current reality with any nostalgia.  Probably helps that I wasn’t alive then…

  • Anonymous

    Conservatives, even the “bomb-throwing” type like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, have proven next to useless on immigration.  Indeed, by downplaying race, language, carrying capacity and national identity, they are worse than useless, for they give the impression that “liberals” are the only obstacle to assimilation.   If only conservatives could smite these Blue State heathen, their argument goes, immigrants would be Americanized with little or no trouble. 

    This view is utterly oblivious to research in evolutionary biology, geography, environmental sciences, anthropology  and sociology.  Has it occurred to them that race and capacity for assimilation are intimately linked?  Apparently, it has not.  No matter to the Coulters of this world, deathly afraid of being called “racist,” and as a corollary, ever eager to denounce something called “liberal racism.”  Can’t these people see that by regularly denouncing racism, liberal or not, they unwittingly are ratifying the main premise of multicultualism?  

    As an aside, can these Tea Party/Red State types get off this kick about Martin Luther King being a Republican, and hence, a conservative?  Even if King was a Republican, he would have been the most Left-leaning party member in history.  “RINO” wouldn’t have been the word for it.  Regardless of party affiliation, the man was no conservative even by the most remote stretch.

       

  • Anonymous

    BLACK FLASHMOB ROBBERY  LOOT TEXAS EXON TAUNT CLERK
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybUQ1fRNSPA

  • Anonymous

    The fact is that the immigration debate is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of civilization we’re going to be.

    It has been decided that the US will have a multicultural civilization whether we want it or not.

    The United States has become an empire and as such, our actions in the world will force more people to flee the insecurities of their native homes to find refuge here.

  • Anonymous

    BLACK MOB OF 50 LOOTS TEXAS EXXON OF ALCOHOL  MOCKS STORE CLERK
     a prelude to pharmacy and liquer store  looting?  we’ll find out soon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybUQ1fRNSPA

  • Removed

  • Anonymous

    Looks like the NPR piece let the mask slip a bit – Democrats have all but conceded that native born white Americans hate them (with the exception of government employees, university faculties and Jews). The Dems know that they literally have to import their next generation of voters and the Republicans/right are too scared to call them on it.

  • Anonymous

    We need to do Triage on America’s injuries and figure out which wound is bleeding the worst. In my opinion it is either illegal immigration or our misadventures overseas. Let’s apply a tourniquet there first, and then we can talk about legal immigration.

    That conversation has to be made, but everything has to happen by degrees. You’re not going to be able to lecture people about the ills of legal immigration when they believe that illegal immigration is not a crime. One thing at a time.

  • Right. Republicans oppose illegal immigration simply because “they broke the law”. Republicans then say these illegals should go to the back of the line, wherever that is, while simultaneously proposing the US remove restrictions on legal immigration so that people can more easily immigrate. 

    In other words, Republicans want illegals to go to the back of the line so they can get back in the line to get to the country quicker with their proposed ideals, being rubber-stamped “citizen” the “legal” way. 

    Republicans want to delay illegal immigrants’ migration here, they’re not against it. 

    • Anonymous

      And see where that can lead.  “Well, you were eventually going to let them in anyway…so why not amnesty?”

  • Anonymous

    Race deniers have no basis on which to object to legal immigration.  If there are no race differences, then why should it matter who comes here, unless there is massive unemployment or lack of space or resources?

  • And yet Jeffrey Tucker of the libertarian Ludwig von Mises institute recently stated that the United states could easily sustain a population of six billion. As a rule, most libertarians don’t see human beings, they see economic units. So Jeffrey Tucker and his ilk just see the United States as a place where economic units produce and consume, and the more the merrier.

  • Anonymous

    Indeed the Republicans will move so far to the left as to look like the democrats of today and the democrats will just be openly socialist.  We will be a third world hellhole.

  • Joe Burns

    With immigration laws not being enforced, millions more foreigners are coming in year by year. It’s pretty much over – the US that is.

    The future will be with the Democratic party as it becomes stronger through immigration and voter fraud. They’re a political body dedicated to socialism, though, funny as it seems, they deny it.

    Most of the US, in general, is naive about all this. Maybe it’s just better to be fat, dumb, and happy:) The stupid white elites and the dark skinned people believe in fantasy, free lunches,
    and the Marxist centralized planning that this evil party (democrat) is developing. 

    Republicans? Huh! Don’t make me laugh – they aren’t much better. They are now shifting to the left in hope of scooping up a few dark skinned voters. If not, they’re keeping their mouths shut about the important issues in the country so as not being labeled racist or this or that. They are so timid it makes me puke. No wonder why the Democrats have the upper hand.

  • Anonymous

    This Bible-thumping ex-Republican says our sandbox, our rules.  We should be able to accept or reject potential immigrants for any reason.  Yeah, they’re human…but so is the burglar breaking into someone’s house.  Being human doesn’t mean you have the fundamental right to live in whatever country you want.

  • Sorry to be the one to say it, but:
    “It’s too late”

    That’s right.  There is no way the average dumb white American is going to join a movement whose goal is to remove 30 million Mexicans and 30 million Africans from America. Their pacifist up-bringing, Christian “love”, and racial blindness will prevent them.

    For that reason, those of us who KNOW what is happening  (and WHY) must watch this horror show and wonder how we can protect our children.

    My children know that upon adult hood they are to find and live in the remaining “white” areas and to NEVER get so settled into that community that they can’t move. They must be mobile and able to move.

    I can perhaps see a “last stand” area of like minded radical racial whites, but at that point the US Army will be used to eradicate the “racist” whites who won’t assimilate.

    If it happens in my life time, I would rather die.  And I will.

    I was born and lived through the best time for White America. I cry inside when I remember what once was.  This nation was once great BECAUSE it was 95% white. It is now a sewer because  it is about 65% white. Just wait till “they” control all the politicians.

    We whites will become the slaves for the non-whites. Since we can produce we will be taxed to death and under constant watch. We will work, while our political and corporate master have the power. 

    There is something really evil in this world.  True Evil. I can “see” it and “feel” it but I can’t fight it.  It hides behind the institutions we see. Who owns the Federal Reserve? Who is behind the Income Tax. Who is behind the illegal immigration?

    Pure Evil and it is winning. 

    • Anon

      I feel exactly as you do. The White race is too weak and cowardly now to do anything to save themselves. I do blame the brand of Christianity that has been preached to them doe eons as the main culprit. Just watch some of these old TV shows like the Waltons, etc. that seem to always have some “nice” black or gypsy etc. coming aboard and how Olivia always has the “Christian” thing to say and how the Whites see the error of their ways. It is one big joke. TV and Hollywood are controlled by our enemies from day one.

  • JJ Cintia

    Personally, I’d rather be called a Racist than a Fool!  Demographics is destiny, and genetics is more than half the make-up of a person’s character!
    These Demographics could change overnight with White Leadership!  No, RonPaul is not going to be that Leader, as he is all in with Multiracial Fantasizing!
    One Nation, One People, One Leader…

    • Ein Volk, Ein Riech

      Someday……..