The Hispanic Family: The Case for National Action - Looking at and for honest numbers.

National Review Online ^ | April 14, 2008 | Heather Mac Donald

[ought-six]

The author of this article is right. The black family in America, prior to Lyndon Johnson’s destructive “Great Society” wet dream, was very stable. The “Great Society” disaster destroyed the black family in America, because it told blacks that the government (Uncle Sugar) would take care of them, which in effect told black men that their families did not need them, and they took that as a license to take off and become “a player” and a non-productive (in the economic sense, not in the procreation sense) member of society. Hispanics have bought into the same mindset.

[Kimberly GG]

“Americans have grown accustomed to being called bigoted “xenophobes” by open-borders conservatives.”

Seen that word tossed around here as well.

[Travis McGee]

Wait, wait.....I thought the Hispanic immivaders were all wonderful family folks, who were going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and vote Republican?

[Cacique]

Bokkmarked for later retrieval

[Hawk1976]

I wonder what Hamlet’s Lesser thinks of this?

[Travis McGee]

You mean Dane? She’s in denial.

[ROP_RIP]

The part that scares the PC police the most is that these kinds of articles lead people to ask some very uncomfortable questions. Such as:

If large numbers of Hispanics who are already here are disproportionately contributing to America’s social problems, is it unreasonable to expect that adding more of them will make the problem even worse?

Does this mean that some groups are better immigrants than other groups?

Does this mean that the 1965 quota system is fundamentally broken, and needs to be changed to reflect the fact that immigrants from some countries make better Americans than immigrants from other countries?

Does this mean that diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing?

Does this mean that not all cultures, ethnicities, and/or races are equal?

[rmlew]

the Great Society and the cultural devolution knowns as the 1960s and 70s has done the same to whites.

[CottonBall]

“Americans have grown accustomed to being called bigoted “xenophobes” by open-borders conservatives.”

Seen that word tossed around here as well.

By open-borders 'conservatives', I'd bet.

[CottonBall]

Does this mean that diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing?

Not when the so-called diversity comes from only one area of the world, from countries that are similar in their third world mob mentality and lack of education. Real diversity would be having a proportionate number of LEGAL immigrants from nations all over the world. Even most of our legal immigrants all come from one area.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[neverdem]

Does this mean that diversity isn’t necessarily a good thing?

Robert Putnam: Diversity Is Our Destruction

Putnam is a liberal from Harvard. Here's his study: E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century

Wal-Mart to log guns sold, then used in crimes (Bloomberg strikes again!)

Firearms Industry Responds to Mayoral Gun Summit

NRA Statement on Bloomberg - Wal-Mart Initiative to Retain Store Records of Gun Sales and Force Employee Background Checks

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[raybbr]

Don't forget, from 1990...

The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)

An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.

Click the Pic!!!!

Excerpt....

How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.

This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

[Travis McGee]

Auster bttt

[junta]

Conservatives ought to face the fact that the left is populated by mental defectives obsessed with phobias. If our liberals were in charge in Galileo’s time he would have been crucified and his telescope confiscated and destroyed.

[kabar]

In the March 19 issue, the magazine reports the “bad news from California: The vaunted Latino family is coming to resemble the black family.”

We have introduced another component to the permanent underclass. Hispanics will be 29% of the country by 2050. Half of the children ages 0 to 5 are minorities. Demography is destiny.

[brytlea]

I am convinced that many of the open borders folk could not give a rats patootie about the Hispanic people. They want either cheap labor or votes, and it matters not a wit to them how these people live. In fat, if they actually pull themselves into the middle class it works against then being either cheap labor or voters for more government programs.
susie

[skeeter]

We have introduced another component to the permanent underclass. Hispanics will be 29% of the country by 2050. Half of the children ages 0 to 5 are minorities. Demography is destiny.

IMO the recent & unprecedented hispanic influx is fueling the GOP's march to the left. Republican leadership doesn't want to be 'left behind'.

[curiosity]

The author of this article is right. The black family in America, prior to Lyndon Johnson’s destructive “Great Society” wet dream, was very stable.

Well, it was certainly better than it is now, but I would not call a situation in which 1 in 4 children are born out of wedlock "very stable."

Even in the pre-Great Society days MLK himself expressed alarm at what has happening to the black family.

I have no doubt the Great Society made things a lot worse, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking it was all hunky-dory beforehand.