Share This Page

A nation's survival isn't racism

| Friday, April 4, 2014, 8:57 p.m.

It may surprise some Americans to learn that almost one-quarter of the people living in Switzerland are foreigners. Even so, just over 50 percent voted last month to cap immigration, which, unchecked, could leave indigenous Swiss a minority in 50 years.

Newsweek's headline over the story was typical: “Switzerland's Sudden Fear of Immigrants.”

But was it really “fear of immigrants” that drove sufficient numbers of Swiss to the polls to check their own demographic extinction as a recognizable culture and nation-state? Or was it a nearly anachronistic instinct to survive as a recognizable culture and nation-state?

I see it as the instinct to survive — and applaud the Swiss for deciding to limit the influx immigrants. I also envy them for mustering this narrow-edged popular will to control their own borders. It is something that has all but flat-lined in America, where capping immigration is not even a part of the political debate.

Why isn't it? In the U.S., the foreign-born population is now estimated to be around 13 percent, and it's rising every year. Meanwhile, that overall percentage, a little more than one in 10, masks the greater density and impact of foreign-born populations in the states and cities where immigrants and illegal aliens congregate.

Take California, a state where waves of mainly Mexican arrivals have turned the population 38 percent Hispanic/Latino. In Los Angeles County, the figure jumps to 48 percent. The next largest ethnic group is non-Hispanic white: 27 percent. In 1960, non-Hispanic whites were 82 percent of the county. What we are looking at is population replacement.

Such population replacement is underway everywhere non-assimilable blocs become entrenched — with or without “amnesty.” But We, the People, have never voted for it. It just happens, forced or enabled from above. It could be that a majority of us want to disappear in a global multiculture — or, in the case of states like California, into an enclave-pocked Mexican monoculture.

But that's not why we have borders and immigration laws. Tragically, we also have a political class and presidents who lawlessly refuse to enforce these laws, making a mockery of our borders, not to mention the democratic process.

If we consider the typical reaction to the recent Swiss vote, we will recognize the mechanism of our own demise: silence and retreat in the face of endless recrimination and grievance-mongering. What a way to lose a country. And what a way to lose a world — the “Western” world, where this same pattern repeats almost everywhere.

The demographics of The Hague, Netherlands, for example, are not too dissimilar from those in California. As in other major Dutch cities, about half of the people living there are from another country.

Is it “fear” and “scaremongering” to point this out? Is it “racism” to oppose the demographic obliteration of a nation clearly underway? According to what is aptly described as the Dutch establishment, the answer to both questions is yes. We've seen yet another public hate campaign by this establishment to smear, demonize and thus neutralize the one Dutch party that opposes the nation's suicide — the Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders.

For now, it's worth noting that the Dutch are lucky. With the steadfast and brilliant Wilders leading a popular movement, at least they have a chance to survive.

Diana West can be contacted via dianawest@verizon.net.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.