The Urban League will hold its National Convention in St. Louis later this month, and hold a Presidential Candidates’ Forum on July 27. So far, there are no Republican takers. Not even Tom Tancredo.
The NAACP is bad enough, but the National Urban League, for the entirety of its existence, has been devoted to the singular purpose of the forced integration of residential neighborhoods, which has provoked urban sprawl, and ruined the equity that the white working class had built in real estate.
Anybody, much less any Republican, that shows up to the Urban League is essentially saying, F-you white America.
First off, the National Urban League has done other things relevant to VDARE.com readers. Their former director Hugh Price was rather skeptical of H-1b visas early on. That was in a day when folks like Trent Lott were voting for expansion of H-1b visas.
Most of the folks that were hurt during white flight in major US cities were in fact Democrats at the time. The GOP made some political hay during that period-but only to a limited extent. To claim this was representative of the equity of white working class is simply not accurate.
Anyhow, the value of citizenship by far swamps the value of other property for the majority of American families. Organizations like the NAACP and the National Urban League represent important blocks of Americans-albeit imperfectly. They are unlikely to change their stands unless they are respected and reasoned with.
Tancredo has a lot to say to those folks. Paul would have even more-he might speak not only on illegal immigration, but H-1b expansion, the massive increase in the US prison system and how African Americans have paid the price of the Iraq war more than the sons of the wealthy. That is not pandering. It is showing what his platform offers them on their terms. It is also good politics. If Paul and Tancredo got cheered at the NUL and NAACP it would make it even harder to label immigration restriction as racist.
If it would be telling anyone to take a hike, it would be the wealthy backers of both parties that created the current mess we are in.
I don't think that most Americans who oppose busing, affirmative action and government promoted integration of neighborhoods want a political situation in which the leaders of one group can't sell their ideas to members of the other side. On immigration this is key, because while the wealthy backers of both parties are strong supporters of immigration, the working class in both parties are strongly opposed to immigration.
If folks like Trent Lott can do business with Ted Kennedy, why can't populists on the left and the right legitimately speak with each other?