©2015 By ILANA MERCER
“Adios America” is the apropos title of Ann Coulter’s latest book. It details how mass immigration is killing America, as Bill O’Reilly would say (or still will). Adios means farewell in Spanish. Hola is the opposite. Immigration patriots bid a hearty hello to Ann Coulter, as she takes over and takes the battle to the enemy.
The big gun has arrived.
Ms. Coulter had managed to avoid the mass immigration vexation until recently. CPUKE 2013 was when she, I believe, first came out as “a single-issue voter against amnesty.” This Sally-come-lately stand, Ms. Coulter has rationalized with reference to Peter Brimelow, on whose work all immigration patriots piggyback. Ann acknowledged as much during an interview with Chronicles’ Thomas Piatak. Since Brimelow had made the definitive case against the duopoly’s “plan to turn our country into a third world hellhole,” there was nothing more for her to add.
A WND reader expressed a different opinion. He writes: “Ms. Coulter is spot on but a decade late. That’s a big and calculated ‘mistake.’ Unless you recognize how politically cautious she’s been—you cannot appreciate how professionally suicidal the folks at VDARE, NumbersUSA; Michelle Malkin, Pat Buchanan and yourself have truly been all along.”
Then again, Ann herself conceded in the same interview that “Adios'” first seven chapters were a rehash. If it’s now safe to say stuff “everybody knows,” why the wait?
Like our reader, I worry that the indispensable Ann may be too late, and that we’ve passed the tipping point. For years, those of us who’ve warned about demographics have been dubbed racists. But “the D-Bomb has already dropped,” as this column noted in 2012. Demographics need not have become destiny, but they have.
Both factually and analytically exhaustive, Brimelow’s seminal “Alien Nation” remains the definitive text on centrally planned mass immigration. Peter and I are both immigrants. We came to the U.S. via Canada—and before that from countries whose national fabric is in tatters. An attachment rare among the current crop of immigrants to the American ideas of limited government and self-governance, and a recognition of the importance of the bonds that unite members of a civil society in common purpose: these prompted Peter and myself to take up the cudgels on behalf of an adopted country—America—that is still second-to-none, and an oblivious people—Americans—whose heritage is being squandered for a mess of pottage.
With first-hand experience in the visa labyrinth, I’ve been able to lift a corner of the curtain to reveal, for example, that the O-1 visa program is an open-ended one, allowing unlimited access to individuals with extraordinary abilities. If the traitors in D.C. were truly trawling for the world’s limited pool of unique talent, the O-1 visa gives them unlimited access to it. The H-1B program is anything but. Theoretically, the H-1B swindle could be abolished and all needed Einsteins and supermodels imported through the O-1 program.
A discussion in 2003 with black immigration patriot Terry Anderson, of blessed memory, prompted this warning against “selling out black Americans”: “It’s all very well to disenfranchise meek, guilt-ridden WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). But by encouraging the displacement of black Americans, promoters of unfettered immigration—black leaders included—may have slipped-up strategically. Given their history, blacks are less inclined to fade into the night. They’ve already been sold down the river once before.”
As a libertarian immigration restrictionist, it has been vital to point out that “we are [not] the world” (2006). Free trade is glorious. America needs and wants to remain the first and most mighty consumer society. But “the free flow of people across borders is not to be confused with the free flow of goods across borders. Free trade is a positive-sum game. Contrary to immigration, it is always invited, consensual and hence mutually beneficial to the parties involved.”
Some things are metaphysical. Again, we are not the world: “The purely economic argument about the price at which American workers will perform menial work is meaningless without a reference to borders and to the thing they bound—a nation. Render asunder the idea of a nation, make borders obsolete—and the world is your labor market. Sure, supply and demand must determine the price of labor. Once the borders are shut to the deluge of laborers, the supply of cheap labor (as well as the steady ‘supply’ of crime and welfarism) will no longer be limitless. A smaller pool of workers will allow wages for ‘menial work’ to rise—all the more so as employers, no longer seduced by the interminable flood of cheap labor, begin to bid for the most productive workers. The resulting higher wages, in turn, will induce more Americans to do ‘menial work.'”
Going by “the ‘logic’ of La-Raza libertarians,” “living at the public’s expense does indeed violate the rights of American taxpayers, but there is no reason to single out non-nationals.” Oh yes there is. Such illogic was defeated in 2006: “From the fact that you oppose taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals, it doesn’t follow that extending it to millions of unviable non-nationals is financially or morally negligible. (Or that it comports with the libertarian aim of curtailing government growth.) The argument is akin to saying that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits, arresting the next is unnecessary as the damage has already been done.”
As to “the exclusive emphasis in the immigration debate on border security”: What a relief it is that Ms. Coulter is finally dispelling this distraction. According to “The Immigration Scene” (2006), this fetish “has helped open-border evangelists immeasurably. Everyone (and his dog) currently concurs that we have no problem with legal immigration, only with the illegal variety. It’s now mandatory to pair an objection to the invasion of the American Southwest with an embrace of all forms of legal immigration. The sole emphasis on border security has, in all likelihood, entrenched the status quo—Americans will never assert their right to determine the nature of the country they live in and, by extension, the kind of immigrants they welcome. The security risk newcomers pose is the only permissible topic for conversation.”
Immigration into the U.S. is a statist and inorganic affair; a result of manipulation for on high. A 2002 tract, “The Problem With Immigration,” explained why: “In previous decades immigrants assimilated. Now they are encouraged by politicians and identity-politics activists to cling to a militant distinctiveness. The state-enforced ideology of multiculturalism and diversity has thus become a double-edged sword, deployed by government at once to make newcomers more subversive and the host population more submissive.”
Not enough can be said about the hypocrisy of environmental lobbies! They “abhor all by-products of human existence, unless generated by illegal aliens. In that case, the vast latrine and land fill created along the border with Mexico, as millions of migrants defecate and despoil their way to their destinations in the U.S., are just dandy.” (From “In Defense Of The Fence.”)
Alas, it might be too late for Annie to get her gun. Recounted in “Immolation by Immigration” (2002), our family witnessed the following at the American Immigration and Naturalization Service headquarters in Montreal, where we waited to complete the final leg of the immigration odyssey: “Small extended families like ours were not the norm among immigrant families. Birth rates being what they are in the Third World, one qualified legal immigrant from, say, Africa is a ticket for an entire tribe. The initial entrant—the meal ticket—integrates and pays his way; the rest remain, more often than not, unassimilable and welfare dependent.”
To paraphrase the old nursery rhyme, When she’s good she’s very very good. Ann Coulter is perhaps the most powerful ally the immigration patriot movement could hope to recruit.
We can now stand down as she stands up.