When: Thursday January 29, 12:30-2:30 PM
Where: The National Press Club; 529 14th St., NW, Washington DC 20045 (Directions)
Despite media reports to the contrary, every defeated GOP Congressional candidate supported amnesty or open border policies for illegal aliens – or had Democratic contenders who took tough stands on illegal immigration, according to a new study to be released at a symposium next Thursday.
“Immigration and the 2008 Republican Defeat,” will be released by The American Cause on January 29 at 12:30 p.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The study is a detailed analysis of every single Republican seat lost in the 2008 House Race, that shows in virtually every race the Republican supported amnesty or the Democrat supported tough border security.
An abnormal one, courtesy of the Southern Poverty Law Center, looks like this:
Pat Buchanan Think Tank Hosts Discussion with Anti-Immigrant Extremists Posted in Anti-Immigrant by Heidi Beirich on January 27, 2009
That's from SPLC's “Hatewatch,” a feature where they obsessively watch people they hate. It includes the usual SPLC tactic of finding something that someone said years ago, and quoting it out of context, or finding something that someone who knows someone said, in weird kind of “guilt by association.”
The Peter Brimelow section says
“Brimelow's best selling 1996 anti-immigrant book, Alien Nation, included strong veins of racism and xenophobia. He described the role of race as “elemental, absolute, fundamental.” He said that white Americans should demand that U.S. immigration quotas be changed to allow in mostly whites. He argued that spending tax dollars on anything related to multiculturalism was “subversive.” He called foreign immigrants “weird aliens with dubious habits.” He worried repeatedly that his son, with his “blue eyes” and “blond hair,” would grow up in an America in which whites had lost the majority.”
The “weird aliens with dubious habits” quote is dealt with here–it was meant facetiously. The quote about the role of race being ”elemental, absolute, fundamental” is out of context, and said “ethnicity and race” rather than race in the original. (It's also mispunctuated, in the book the words are separated by dashes. The original explains that what has happened in other countries can happen in America:
“In modern times, there has been a lot of seductive murmuring about internationalism, united nations, new world orders, and so on. But, meanwhile, the role of ethnicity and race has proved to be elemental—absolute—fundamental. Look at the record, working back from the present:
And these are just the cases where ethnic and racial differences have actually succeeded in breaking a country up. Many other cases are not yet resolved, because of often-bloody repression.
- Eritrea, a former Italian colony ruled by Ethiopia since 1952, revolt begins in 1960s, finally splits off 1993.
- Czechoslovakia, founded 1918, splits into Czech and Slovak ethnic components, 1993.
- Soviet Union, founded 1922, splits into multiple underlying ethnic components, 1991. (Some of the underlying components are themselves promptly threatened with further ethnic fragmentation—Georgia, Moldova.)
- Yugoslavia, founded 1918, splits into multiple underlying ethnic components 1991. (An earlier breakup averted by imposition of royal dictatorship, 1929.)
- Lebanon, founded 1920, progressive destabilization caused by its Muslim component's faster growth results in civil war, effective partition under Syrian domination, after 1975.
- Cyprus, independent 1960, repeated violence between Greeks and Turks results in military intervention by Turkey, effective partition with substantial ethnic cleansing, 1974.
- Pakistan, independent 1947, ethnically distinct eastern component rebels, splits off after Indian military intervention, 1971.
- Malaysia, independent 1963, political conflict between ethnic Malays and Chinese, Chinese-dominated Singapore expelled,1965.
The very brief mention of Peter's blond-haired, blue-eyed son seems to drive people crazy. It may be the most-cited passage in the book. But its point was the zero-sum nature of racial quotas, and the importation of people who are eligible for affirmative action.What Peter actually wrote in 1995 was this:
“Race and ethnicity are destiny in American politics. And, because of the rise of affirmative-action quotas, for American individuals too.
My son, Alexander, [aged 4 at the time] is a white male with blue eyes and blond hair. He has never discriminated against anyone in his little life (except possibly young women visitors whom he suspects of being babysitters). But public policy now discriminates against him. The sheer size of the so-called “protected classes” that are now politically favored, such as Hispanics, will be a matter of vital importance as long as he lives. And their size is basically determined by immigration.”
Or to put it another way, Peter's son, the child of an immigrant, is destined to be discriminated against, under current law, because of the color of his skin. Meanwhile, Jayson Blair, whose father was an Inspector General at the Smithsonian, gets a job at the New York Times. And immigration imports more potential affirmative action cases every day.