A Reader Has Reservations About Peggy Noonan
Print Friendly and PDF

December 12, 2005

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON'T want your name and/or email address published when sending VDARE email.

A Reader Questions The Word "Christophobia"; Peter Brimelow Defends It

From:  Ryan Kennedy: (e-mail him)

Re: Peter Brimelow's Blog: "Is Peggy Noonan Converting?"

I thought Noonan's column was good — for a Wall Street Journal piece. 

But it carried a canard I frequently see on our side.  The canard being that the only problem with our massive immigration is that it is illegal.  Our side uses this argument a lot because it fits in with the tendency in American politics to point with righteous indignation to corrupt practices and demand change.  It makes us feel high on our horses to be on the side of the law.  It leaves them in the position of arguing on the side of law-breakers.

But to me, it wouldn't make a difference if all these foreigners were legal or not.  What difference would it make if my Mexican neighbors with their 15-member household (plus livestock) are legal or not?  In fact I think it would be worse if they were all in fact legal, because then there would be no potential recourse.  How could I even hope to deport them?  And how many would come flooding in seeing their cousin's legal status?

No, the problem is importing massive numbers of people who are so radically different in custom, religionrace and ethnicity from us.  That's the problem.  Not economics, not legality, not even relative criminal propensity.
Print Friendly and PDF