Came across this article while scanning Sully. Here's a snippet:
"For those who, with good reason, worry about the solvency of transfer programs in an age of population decline, replacement immigration looks like a partial solution, and therefore xenophobia is part of the problem. But for many if not most of the people preoccupied by fertility rates, immigration is no solution at all. The question isn’t about whether the United States, Singapore, or France will be without people in 2100; it’s about what kind of people will populate those countries: what they will look like, what they will teach in their schools, what God they will bow before. Mark Steyn’s America Alone warns that within a few generations Europe will be a Muslim continent. When Pat Buchanan discusses depopulation in The Death of the West, he does not proceed to suggest we replace children of European descent with Mexican laborers. Pro-natalist policies in Quebec, Singapore, and until recently Israel implicitly target a preferred ethnic group, attempting to fill the future with the demographics desired by the current political class."
Megan & Wilkinson & Ross discuss. I haven't reviewed the whole article so I'm reserving criticism of it, but I have a few off the cuff opinions regarding this entire issue. First off, as someone who has read Buchanan's Eurocentric books, I immediately draw away from this topic mostly because the issue skirts the fine line between seriously sociology and xenophobic racism. Yeah, of course I love western style liberalism and trade (which ironically is the reason why we're not exactly eager to have babies), but as a black man when I think the high price minorities have had to pay to create that system I'm at odds whether to encourage it or to let it stand on it's own merits. And really isn't that what the discussion should be about? Any cultural change in America would have to be done relatively slowly, meaning that the more ingrained, and, in my opinion, more important aspects of western liberalism would be the slowest to be overcome, but yet they should be the least likely to go since it's the reason that most people want to come to America in the first place. Indeed it's the reason the founding fathers developed the experiment. So in my eyes I'm less concerned what religion this country takes on, or what music they listen to, or what food they eat, or even what language they speak (of course, as a English teacher, I hope they wait till I die to take away my industry), than in maintaining the laws and traditions that allow them to respect the freedom of others to maintain their independence from the cultural standard.
So basically I guess I'm alright with Mexico taking over America as long as they keep the ACLU. How do you say 'civil liberties' in Spanish?