Anytime somebody brings up immigration as "an issue," I interject that it's vastly bigger than "an issue" because (mass) immigration impacts virtually every aspect of a (receiving) society's national life.
(What are examples of "issues"? Tax policy. The Keystone pipeline. The generosity of medical benefits for retired public employees. Etc.)
So it's fitting that John O'Sullivan, VDARE friend and longtime colleague of Peter Brimelow, used the subject of immigration to illustrate a central point in his brief piece, The Case Against Optimism, today at National Review Online(Links added):
[P]essimism is open to many of the same objections as optimism. Of the two, however, it is probably the better, if only barely. A mistaken policy rooted in optimism not only is a disaster in the making, but will probably be persisted in long after its demerits are obvious. A mistaken policy rooted in pessimism will be cautiously implemented and ended more quickly. That is why optimists are more likely to be disappointed by events, pessimists to be relieved by them. If you want examples of a policy rooted firmly in optimism, the best ones are probably U.S. immigration policy since the 1965 Immigration Act, and British immigration policy under Blair and Brown. It’s not necessary to say more than that. The case argues itself.