Why I Am A Democrat (And An Immigration Reformer).

Many of you have
responded to my

VDARE.COM writings
with this question: How could you
be a Democrat when your party seems to favor open
borders and you are so strongly in favor of

real immigration reform
?

Let me hasten to
stipulate: that the

record of my party
on the immigration invasion has
been

pitiful

However, it is
encouraging to hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say
recently, according to the Post, that she won`t
bring

an amnesty bill to the floor
unless

President Bush guarantees
at least 70 Republican
`Yes` votes.

The Post comments,


"In contrast to her
approach to other controversial issues, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told the

White House
that she cannot pass a bill with
Democratic votes alone, nor will she seek to enforce
party discipline on the issue. Bush will have to produce
at least

70 Republican votes
before she considers a vote on
comprehensive immigration legislation, a task that may
be very difficult for a president saddled with

low approval ratings
." [
President
Renewing Efforts on Immigration
,
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post,, April 9, 2007]

So the years of
pandering to the cheap labor lobby may at last have hit
a snag.

But I am not a
Democrat because of this clearly political maneuvering
by Pelosi—whose NumbersUSA rating on immigration reform

is F minus
!

I have been a
Democrat for more than forty years. I came from a rather
languid moderate Republican background. But I started to
develop as a Democrat in the 1960s. I was a foundation
program officer assigned, with virtually no prior
training or experience, to monitor and originate program
grants in the field of

family planning,
both domestic and international.  

Then and since,
trips around the world, to

developing countries
, to

places
that most folks living in gated America never
visit, convinced me that the world is indeed moving to
an Armageddon—not one punctuated by the Second Coming,
but rather by

massive wars
,

famine
and

pestilence
, as we have moved from a world inhabited
by 2 billion humans at the end of the 19th Century to
one with at least 10 billion by 2100. 

The disruptions we
observe daily in our media are real, folks.  The
shortages, the killings, the pain are happening to real
people.  Those hundreds of thousands of

deaths
 in

Darfur
and elsewhere are really happening, even
though most Americans see only the TV images as they go
on with their normal lives.

It is obvious that
this population growth drives worldwide mass
migration—including the massive invasion of America. 
The era of promoting endless growth of everything, still
an American business icon, should be at least considered
for its advantages and disadvantages.

But the Republican
Party and its leaders still haven`t gotten the point.

My attitude was
well summarized in the April 13th Washington Post.
Bob Thompson quoted the novelist Kurt Vonnegut, who died
on April 11th, as saying in 2005, "The America I
loved is gone."
[So
He Goes, Not Quietly
]

The America
Vonnegut loved—the one he came home from World War II to
look for—was an optimistic place, he said. When you
asked its citizens what class they belonged to,
"practically everybody said `middle,` and

there was always a job
you could get that was enough
to live on."
There was "a great system of free

public schools
."

Now we`ve got
"a government run entirely by people who are

beholden to rich people
or who

are themselves rich
."
And they have "carte
blanche
, apparently, to do whatever they want. . . .
These people are decisive. Women go for them, because
the other guys they know are all so wishy-washy." 

Mr. Vonnegut,
that`s a great description of the recent Republican
leadership.  A glance at page one of the Washington
Post
that day makes clear the callous indifference
and arrogance of the Republican leadership:   Rove`s

possibly incriminating emails are missing,
World
Bank

President Paul Wolfowitz`
s fellow employee
girlfriend gets preferential job treatment, while

tons of food spoils when FEMA ran out of storage space
,
and the supposedly

impregnable
Green Zone in

Baghdad
gets penetrated by a

suicide bomber
.

The Republican
Party has become transformed into what

Kevin Phillips
so

eloquently described
in his 2006 book: American Theocracy.  

In the
newly-issued paperback edition of this brilliant
recitation of how we got to where we are now, Phillips
traces the evolution of the Republican Party with its
petroleum-driven agenda, its embrace of a wholly
conservative social agenda, its uncontrolled spending,
its large governing component of

right wing religious zealots
and its consequent
attempt to enforce its authoritarian positions on
everyone. 

Republican leaders
have callously tried to erase the revered separation of

church and state
for the votes of its

evangelicals
, a majority of whom believe in the
second coming of Jesus.

Phillips`s
recitation of the history of earlier dominant empires
such as the

Dutch in 15th and 16th centuries
and the

British
starting in the

17th century
until 1914, causes him to reflect that
the same force, energy (in the British case, coal, in
our case, oil) drove these countries to dominance. And
now the USA is likely to decline in power, as our
domestic supplies and

world production have peaked
and our near-monopoly
control of oil supplies has diminished.

After tracing this
over 100

year oil addiction
, Phillips then quotes the denials
by Bush and his henchmen that our invasion of Iraq had
anything to do with oil. This he says, is "of
course…steaming horse manure."  

So why do I
support the candidacy of Congressman

Tom Tancredo
(R-CO), who is

pro life
, anti gay marriage, etc.?   Because of the
urgency of treating the immigration issue.  He is the
only candidate presently running who if elected would
urge

real immigration reform. 
His views on these other
issues are temporarily less important. For example,
reproductive choice in the US is prevalent and likely to
remain so.

I recognize the
extreme irony in all this.  How can a bright person like

Tancredo
, or

Pat Buchanan,
not connect the dots about the rapid
population growth occurring in the Third World nations
and our own immigration invasion? 

How can one be for
immigration limitation and not for

family planning
?  Women die daily as the result of
the

anti abortion Helms` Amendment
which was enacted in
the early 1970`s and strengthened under Bush. 

So there you have
it.  I was driven from the Republicans to the Democratic
Party.  While that party far from completely embodies
the former Republican core tenets—fiscal restraint,

protection of private property,


separation of church and state
and the

Rule of Law
—at least seems to offer a better vision
of personal choice and democratic freedom which the
Republican Party has lost as it became dominated by its
theocrats, including our President.

But political
affiliation for me and for most thoughtful Americans
remains

complex and evolving
. My faith in

any party
is constantly under review. 

Will a new
Democratic Presidential candidate surface for whom I can
vote?  Will one of those now running take up the cudgels
for real reform? 

How is

Al Gore on immigration reform?
  Has he connected the
dots on the

relation of global warming
to the phenomenon of

massive population growth
sufficiently to take a
strong position on US immigration reform? 

That would help,
even if he does not decide to run. Stay tuned.

Should Tancredo,
by some turn of fate, get the nomination, the

Democratic nominee
better have a

good immigration story
.  You know the right one: 

Border control
and

confirmed ID
first,

tested for several years
to prove that the laws are
working. 

If not, this
Democrat could well eschew his party`s choice for
someone like Tancredo—warts and all. 

Donald A. Collins [email
him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.