District of Corruption

Yes to Racial Profiling, No to Amnesty

It looks as if Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, the first to make coming into this country a crime one can be arrested for at the state level, is going to force Obama to take on immigration reform.  The Washington Post reports that Harry Reid is going to introduce a Democratic amnesty bill within three weeks if a bipartisan one can’t be worked out.

Holder’s Justice Department is in the process of “examining the Arizona law to see if questions about racial profiling might require federal intervention.”  Jan Brewer, the Arizona governor, to her credit says that ethnicity can be used as one factor in deciding whether to suspect someone of being in the country illegally.  The idea that the federal government is going to allow this strikes me as very unlikely.

The only real alternative to ensuring there’s no racial profiling is simply not enforcing immigration laws at all, which is what libertarians, globalists and liberals want anyway.  The vast majority of the people in the U.S. illegally are from Latin America: 57 percent come from Mexico, 4 percent from El Salvador, 4 percent from Guatemala, 2 percent form Honduras and 2 percent from Brazil.  These percentages are certainly higher in a border state like Arizona.  Police are obviously going to disproportionately suspect Hispanic looking people of being illegal immigrants.  You may make cops scared of profiling and render the law toothless the way trying not to be racist against blacks leads to us exaggerating everything they accomplish, but it’s impossible to imagine a world where law enforcement agents don’t take race into consideration either way and instead treat everyone the same.  If that’s the case, then as long as the federal government declares that it’s going to stop the states from enacting any law that leads to racial profiling very little that’s significant can be done at the local level to deal with the illegal immigration problem.

Regardless of whether this law holds up, this is now a national issue.  And if you thought that the elites were spooked by the implicit whiteness and pure rage in the opposition to health care reform, just wait for the upcoming battle over immigration.

As Pat Buchanan points out, whites are slowly becoming desensitized to the charge of racism.  An immigration battle every two or three years for the next few decades, which is what we’ll have as long as the border isn’t secured, can only be a good thing for that end.

Stopping amnesty is important, but not for the reasons people think.

Its means little as far as population figures are concerned.  If a Hispanic comes to America illegally and dies without ever reproducing, there’s no effect on the next generation.  If a Hispanic comes to America and has children, they’re citizens anyway regardless of the status of the parents.  So either way, whether amnesty is given or not doesn’t mean much for the future demographics of the country. (There are other considerations.  For example, a promise or passage of amnesty might draw more illegals, etc.  But birthrates by ethnicity are still the most important factor in determining America’s future ethnic makeup)

On the other hand, this battle is important because as I wrote a few weeks ago,

when there’s a white minority, people must know that Americans never gave their consent through either public opinion or their elected officials.  That could be the basis of a mass movement to revoke the citizenship of anchor babies and their descendants.

While such a movement would be nice, now that I think about it more carefully the odds of this happening seem impossible.  What would we do with people who are half or a quarter descendant from illegals?  Or those that don't know who their fathers are, since many Hispanic children don't?

No, all these tens of millions of people descended from illegals won't ever have their citizenship revoked.   But the idea that we never wanted this and didn't abet the Hispanic demographic wave will still always be a powerful one.