Saturday, May 19, 2007

Importing "Family Values"

"But it would also seem a priori likely that third-world immigrants should have stronger family values than white, middle-class, suburban Americans, while their work ethic and willingness to defer to traditional sources of authority should be greater as well."

Francis "Still Waiting for the End of History" Fukuyama

"My second argument is that the immigrants themselves are like a booster shot of traditional morality injected into the body politic. Immigrants work hard. They build community groups. They have traditional ideas about family structure, and they work heroically to make them a reality."

David Brooks

"As a Texan, I have known many immigrant families, mainly from Mexico, and I have seen what they add to our country. They bring to America the values of faith in God, love of family, hard work and self reliance -- the values that made us a great nation to begin with."

George W. Bush

The sub-species of reptilia known as neoconservatives are among the chief proponents of (altogether now) "comprehensiveimmigrationreform" because they loathe bourgeois, middle-American values and breathlessly await the birth of "The First Universal Nation."

Feel free to quibble, but any rational definition of a nation begins with a homogeneous population sharing a common identity and occupying a contiguous territory; speaking the same language; having a common religion, literature, manners, customs, literature, and mythology; governed by the same principles and traditions; and conscious of common destiny and solidarity. In short, it is an ethno-cultural entity and by definition cannot be universal in nature.

Neocons believe in the concept of a "propositional" nation, where nationhood is defined ideologically, and rather than tied together through ancestry or a shared history, a people is united by a common commitment to a set of ideas and ideals, a creed. As Lawrence Auster has argued, Neocons start with an organizing mythology about nationhood: "America was built on universal principles of human rights, equality, and open borders; therefore America, by definition, must have a virtually infinite capacity for absorbing racially and culturally diverse peoples into its national fabric; and therefore any serious concerns about what immigration is actually doing to the country are un-American and must be automatically dismissed."

Hence the American nation is reduced to a series of bumper-stickers--"The First Universal Nation," "A Melting Pot," or a "Nation of Immigrants" grounded in the principles of "Family Values."

Neocons proceed to evangelize with the fervor of a Pentecostal minister about the virtues of immigrants. Immigrants are "a booster shot of traditional morality injected into the body politic," preaches David Brooks from his pulpit at the NY Times.


Are immigrants less crime proned? While non-citizens constitute 7.2 percent of the total U.S. population, their share of the incarcerated population is 12.9 percent. Approximately 27 percent of all prisoners in Federal custody are criminal aliens, and the incarceration rate of Hispanics is more than twice that of whites.

And what about those famous "family values?" Well, Hispanic women are two and a half times more likely to have abortions than white women, have a far higher rate of teenage pregnancy (94 per 1,000 vs. 32 for whites), and have significantly more children without the benefit of wedlock, spawning future generations likely to have all of the pathologies associated with illegitimacy. On the plus side, if you don't get married the good news is that you never need a divorce.


Blogger Matthew Dunnyveg said...

"My second argument is that the immigrants themselves are like a booster shot of traditional morality injected into the body politic."

Whose "traditional morality" is he referring to? The headhunters of Papua New Guinea? The Arab slave traders? Perhaps the neocons have developed the First Universal Traditional Culture to go with the First Universal Proposition Nation.

4:30 PM  
Anonymous Carol P said...

Just a few questions. The government says it is too overwhelming to gather up and deport illegals. Why is it NOT overwhelming to register the a bigger amount of people to legalize them??? Is Bank of America going to loan each of these illegals 5K? Do we have to learn Spanish? Now that I will be a minority, can I finnaly belong to an organization that promotes advancment of whites? Do these Catholic Mexicans have to outlaw abortion before joining the Democratic party or will they create their own non-gringo party?

5:09 PM  
Blogger Darrell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:42 PM  
Blogger Darrell said...

Answers to Carol's questions:

1) I have no idea?
2) Yes, though they will charge usurious interest rates, which will ultimately be paid by taxpayers in 2015.
3) Probably.
4) Absolutely not.

As for the political consequences, I've written about that here (

"First, traditional political institutions, and especially parties and their campaign tactics, will compete for this new bloc of voters. In doing so, they will adapt to the demands, interests, and values of immigrants by abandoning issues and constituencies they have supported in the past....A second long-term possibility is that immigrants may import new demands and interests that cannot be met by existing political institutions and may thus create new vehicles to pursue their goals. According to a Zogby poll, some 58% of Mexicans think that the American southwest belongs to Mexico. One might assume that Republican and Democrat politicians will resist such claims. In such an event, it would not be terribly surprising to see new parties form that are more amenable to Mexican irredentism. Third, mass immigration is likely to create a backlash, creating further racial and ethnic polarization in the country. Our political elites actually welcome such an outcome as it provides justification for further meddling in the lives of citizens. The management of racial and ethnic strife is bread and butter for the State...Fourth, the GOP is DOA. Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubestein have been arguing since at least 1997 that mass immigration would leave the GOP as a minority party as early as 2008, in spite of their best efforts to "reach out" to Hispanic voters...Finally, mass immigration will shift political power from the heartland to the coasts."

The political consequences, aside from the economic and cultural devestation, will prove huge.

7:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home