Jackson Free Press

Over at Reason mag, David Weigel is calling out immigration hawks ... for racism?

Bill O'Reilly raging against illegal immigration? Nothing special. Bill O'Reilly prophesying the decline of the white race? That's why we pay our cable bills. On May 16, mustering support for President Bush's proposed crackdown on illegal immigration, The O'Reilly Factor's excitable host advanced his theory of why some Americans are wimping out on militarizing the border.

"According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide," O'Reilly panted. "This can only happen if demographics change in America."

It was the second time in a week that a Fox host had warned of the onrushing Brown Peril. On May 11, Big Story anchor John Gibson reported that America's under-5 population was experiencing a dangerous pigment boom. Gibson has never been cuddly; he vaguely resembles Matthias, the zombie Torquemada from The Omega Man who hunted Charlton Heston for his precious bodily fluids. But Gibson worried the most cynical post-apocalyptic zombies with a warning that "Hispanics are having more kids than others" and that "the ones Hispanics call 'gabachos'—white people—are having fewer." It was time for non-Hispanics to "do your duty" and "make more babies." [...]

For all of the substance in the immigration debate—border walls, ID cards, English as the official U.S. language—it wouldn't have monopolized the national stage last spring without white-hot racial tensions bubbling under the surface.

Icky.

Previous Commentsshow

I rather like the punchline, too: Back in 2002, the Public Policy Institute of California found that Hispanic families had fewer and fewer kids as they assimilated into American culture. First-generation American Hispanics had three children per family, but the second and third generations had only two—about as many as black and non-Hispanic white families tend to have. If this is an invasion, the Mexican army has some severe morale problems. Nativists have been wrong before. They’ll be wrong again. And they’re hilariously wrong right now.

DonnaLadd

Aug 8 2006

This is on one of those arguments that has a lot of truth in it, but isn't really fair because of what it leaves out. There are racial components to this, on both sides of the border. There is also a cultural component (i.e. we need more babies or we'll lose our culture) I suspect the cultural component is even stronger. But, aside from that, the overwhelming concerns have to do with the fact that people don't like having border enforcement laws that aren't enforced. There are lots of flavors of other objections, but I think people want the borders enforced first, and then some kind of legal immigration reform established. Some want guest worker programs, others don't. So, interesting position, but I don't know. Would we be worried if Mexicans were white people? We'll, maybe we would -- if they were Russians.

GLB

Aug 8 2006

To be honest, I hope we are heading toward a brown planet, as that is the most sensible color for everyone. White people are so ugly. My mom is a nurse, and I remember her telling me that white skin just turned to paper when you were old, but black skin remained strong and alive. This, to an 8-year-old white boy living in Kansas. This is why I have always been disappointed when I have fallen in love with white girls. For one, I am disappointing mom. More importantly, I've got to get my children out of this white thing. This ship is going down, people.

Brian C Johnson

Aug 8 2006

Pfft. I don't believe the media on one thing, why should I on another?

Ironghost

Aug 8 2006

Naturall, Brian, that IS satire (for anyone who is taking Brian's statement too seriously, that is)

Philip

Aug 8 2006

There will probably always be discernible "racial" characteristics in people--after all, it's not like we've achieved homogeneity within ethnic groups--but I fail to see why anyone would look at the "brown planet" idea as a bad thing. I think it's a delightful idea to contemplate. For one thing, it might eliminate the concept of race as we know it and make things like skin color more likely to be seen as personal or family characteristics--which would be very helpful and pleasant for a multitude of reasons. Plus it'd cut down on skin cancer. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say "white people are so ugly"--truth is that white can be very beautiful sometimes, too, and I think it's very important in any case that we learn to see ourselves as beautiful--but it's nice not to be a fetishist, to be able to see myself settling down with a non-white woman just as easily as with a white woman. At this point I honestly have no clue what the ethnic background of the person I settle down with will be--I wouldn't even know the odds--but I won't second-guess myself if the person turns out to be white, any more than I'll second-guess myself if the person turns out to be black, brown, or yellow. Falling in love is not something I'm all that self-critical or reductionistic about. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Aug 8 2006

I have no problem with whatever happens to the color scheme of future humanity. But I'm afraid homogeneity won't help much. Racism is just a special form of prejudice, which in turn is just an instinctive "circle the wagons" survival instinct. We will always have to make continual chioces not to cede control to those instincts, and there will always be those who choose not to fight that fight. Just look at Hutus and Tutsis, Catholics and Portestants, Shiites and Sunnis, ect, ect, ect. I have always been firmly convinced that I am the single most attractive human to ever walk the face of the earth. So no one else really counts anyway.

GLB

Aug 8 2006