There’s been much anticipation, both online and off, within our circle of friends on Ron Unz’s latest TAC article. On the same TAC website their new blogger Rod Dreher asked what’s something conservative can’t say to which I replied the immigration debate is largely over with and the questions has been decided. Perhaps Mr. Unz and other conservatives (Tom Fleming said largely the same thing in Nation of Immigrants II edition of Chronicles) are also starting to blurt out the unsayable.
When Chronicles‘ first “Nation of Immigrants” issue came out in 1989 and when Alien Nation was released six years later in National Review, they came at a point int time when something could have been done in the immigration debate which would had a demographic affect to the nation as whole. This opportunity has long since past. The reason there is no national immigration policy is because there is no way such a policy could be constructed and pass Congress. So states and localities are free to do what they wish and in places like Georgia, Arizona and Alabama, they have done so. But as Unz pointed out, for all of Arizona’s restrictions, the fact of the matter is whites are a minority at the elementary school level. And has been pointed out, even if you could stop illegal immigration (which even the Obama Administration does as they have deported over hundred of thousands of illegals) even if you cut off welfare benefits for non-citizens (which one would think would be a matter of just sheer fairness), even if you raise the minimum wage to $12 as Unz proposes to prevent the kind of economic growth one sees in Texas and is passed off as a “miracle”, you still haven’t addressed “legal” immigration from around the world which takes place every day and is currently at numbers not seen since the turn of the 20th Century.
There are many interesting parts of the Unz piece but one aspect he failed to mention which we can pick up here is the aspect of “white flight” in the debate. Whites, as we’ve seen in recent history, react to demographic change by moving with their feet. Thus in California, for example, much of the sprawl which has spilled into the Inland Empire was largely caused by influx of immigrants which drove whites to live further and further away from Los Angeles or San Diego or the Central Valley . Developers responded to demand for cheap housing on dirt tracts and open spaces (as Steve Sailer would explain it) . This same economic driver I believe would still apply even in places that aren’t “exurbs”. I’m taking about the open spaces in the Plains states where the population is old and dying out and towns and counties are rapidly losing population. Again, one thing Unz did not mention was white flight, not just within California, but out of it as well. States like Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Arizona and Utah gained population from these migrants and made such states more Republican than they already were. Well such migration can happen in other states and metropolitan areas affected by immigration, not just California. And where will such people go? To where there is plenty of plenty of open land, open space and its dirt cheap to live. Throw in a oil and natural gas boom and persons who need jobs and there’s good reason why people would want to move to North Dakota. And by the way, every state gets two votes in the United States Senate.
There are many truths we hold dear and then there are those we cling to in the face of reality. The reality is, like it or not, the end of “white America” even if really never meant anything to most whites (certainly not to white poor). But all it means really is new directions and new strategies to pursue instead deluding ourselves as to what could be done. Despite what Unz says, most people are still gather themselves to what is familiar to them as the housing and demographic data show. And it will still be that way even if there are no majorities in the U.S.