A new battle has flared inside the Republican Party in recent days as supporters of more-liberal immigration laws wage a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the influential advocacy groups that have long powered the GOP’s hard-line stance on the issue…. Conservatives who are taking on the groups [Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)], including [Marco] Rubio, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and officials of the Catholic Church, argue that the three organizations are motivated by far different philosophies than many of their Republican allies realize. Among those views: that population growth from increased migration threatens the environment.
So much for conservatives actually conserving anything meaningful, you know, like American wilderness from immigration-driven development or the host population of the historic United States from genetic extinction. Norquist should just admit what he really wants: to transform USA into a cheap-labor Third World regime. Rubio: to transform USA into mestizo backwater over which he thinks (probably naively) he’ll be the natural ruler. Catholic groups seem to want something similar, preferring semi-literate mestizo peasants to more critically-minded Westerners.
In the short term, this matters. And, fortunately, there seems to be a backlash to Rubio and Norquist trying to excommunicate immigration restrictionists from conservatism. Many in Conservatism Inc. realistically know that Hispanics are not going to be voting Republican anytime soon (e.g. 74.7% of Mexican immigrants with children use some form of welfare) unless the GOP becomes the Democratic Party, which probably wouldn’t bother Rubio as long as he gets a meaningful position in its leadership.
In the long term, conservatism is toast. All ideologies eventually die, and conservatism and liberalism are dying. Both concepts have become internally incoherent and are past their expiration date. (And, no, as Nick Land so eloquently explains, libertarianism has no chance.) It’s hard telling what will replace these ideologies. Various identitaire movements in Europe (e.g. in France, Sweden, Greece and the UK) look promising and may be what the future holds for Westerners. Or, what will replace the leftist/conservative dichotomy might be as disguised and unforeseen as if you were living through the years 1913 – 1946.
In the meantime, let’s hope that Rubio and Norquist overplayed their hand and get a summary smackdown.