Peter, I've gotten some quite interesting responses to my American Enterprise piece, which raised certain thoughts in my mind.
Given the fact that you and I very strongly agree on certain issues and very strongly disagree on other issues, I've become curious regarding the relative weights of your views. If, say, there were a measure on the ballot which would
(1) completely outlaw current ethnic affirmative action;
(2) completely get rid of bilingual education; but
(3) freeze into law current (relatively) high levels of immigration, maintaining the current ethnic/skills mix,
…would you vote for or against such a measure?
For the sake of this thought experiment, you can assume that affirmative action and bilingual education really would permanently disappear, while immigration really would permanently remain as currently.
And how do you think most of your fellow-travelers would react to this same mixture?
Dear Ron: sorry about delay.
First, I really must stipulate that I don't believe any such deal could be struck, nor do I believe that, even if struck, it could be sustained. These tendencies flow inexorably from social diversity a.k.a. division. They are part of the reason one is forced to wonder if a diverse society can be truly free.
Second, of course I would vote No. For at least two reasons:
a] Why should public policy second-guess the American people on population size? Why should the population be 400-500 million in 2050, whereas absent immigration it would only be 250-270 million? It's not a matter of projecting national power: what matters there is quality not quantity, and anyway much of the current inflow is unmistakably forming a new underclass. We could reorient to more skilled immigrants, but you're not proposing that. At the very least, this is an amenity issue. California will no longer be the Golden State: it will be the Golden Subdivision.
b] Why do you want to drown the American nation - the historic ethnocultural community - as it had evolved in 1965? This is clearly what you want to do, since you specify that the current "ethnic" mix, 90% non-traditional, must be unchanged. Maybe you've got a good reason. But what is it?
I'd guess my "fellow-travelers" would reject your deal too. How about your fellow subversives?
[Ron Unz replies:] Thanks...I was curious...
April 21, 2000