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 Laws can be repealed.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.