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?
However, it is
encouraging to hear House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say
recently, according to the Post, that she won`t
an amnesty bill to the floor unless
President Bush guarantees at least 70 Republican
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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."
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
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
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
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
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
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
I recognize the
extreme irony in all this. How can a bright person like
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.