Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Mark Krikorian speaks a Mouthful. So does Linda Chavez.
VDARE.com likes to tease Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies for his habit of triangulating against us – although in fact we accept that enabling others to advance the patriotic cause by our drawing fire away from them is a valuable role.
However Mark can be pretty forthright himself. (As he was in the Q & A session of the Diana Furchtgott-Roth/Peter Brimelow row at the Hudson Institute Conference.)
…this whole discussion among John (Fonte), Joe (Hicks), Linda (Chavez), Clint (Bolick), and me has, I think, been quite illuminating. The substantive, documented critiques by John and me, and the glib, breezy responses by Linda and Clint, really highlight the unbridgeable divide on the Right over immigration. On one side is the majority of conservatives, who, despite many differing views on the specifics of immigration policy, nonetheless give first priority to Americanization, borders, sovereignty, and national cohesion. On the other side is a small but vocal group that places first priority on continued high levels of immigration, without any preconditions regarding assimilation or sovereignty. This faction is part of an odd-bedfellows coalition of business lobbyists, libertarian ideologues, racial-chauvinist groups, and left-wing open-borders activists that have been very successful over the years in preventing consistent, across-the-board enforcement of our immigration laws.
It’s long past time to establish the first of these two competing views as the consensus position of the Right: Assimilation first; Secure borders first; Sovereignty first. Those who disagree should either keep their own counsel or find a different political home. (VDARE.com emphasis.)
Find a different political home. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
Linda Chavez also said some significant things in the FrontPage debate. (In inverse order):
the only way we can solve the problem with illegal immigration is to make it possible for more people to come here legally.
I am convinced that the real opposition to immigration reform is culturally-based.
That Chavez is in reality an open borders type is no surprise – although she denied it when Krikorian challenged her. But the assertion that culturally-based opposition to mass immigration (aka “reform”) exists (but is somehow illegitimate) sheds light on what motivates her own dogmatism on the question.
The “Hispanic” camouflage has faded. The lucrative board memberships at illegal-employing companies are beside the point. Linda Chavez – Mrs. Christopher Gerson – has assimilated both in style and beliefs to what comprises today America’s greatest danger.