Well, if you’re one of those leftists whose purpose in life is to be perpetually offended, I suppose it is.
Never mind that Jeb Bush was actually praising immigrants and their ability to nourish the American economy. Never mind that he’s fluent in Spanish and enjoys significant Latino support in Florida.
Nope, by pointing out the obvious truth that immigrant women, primarily of Latina descent, are “more fertile” and thus are better poised to “replenish” the country’s population, he ran afoul of our cultural Marxist overlords.
Perhaps I’m just one of those clueless white people so blinded by “privilege” that I can’t empathize with oppressed minorities, but can someone enlighten me as to how this is offensive? Is “fertile” now a wicked word? By using the term “fertile,” is he somehow dehumanizing immigrant women by reducing them to broodmares?
The reaction to Jeb Bush’s comment is absurd. The mainstream media constantly highlights and celebrates the “browning of America” and the impending non-white majority. Just last year, when non-white births eclipsed white births for the first time since the U.S. became a nation, the reactions ranged from moderate to enthusiastic. So how do you suppose this wonderful phenomenon occurred? Well, it was a combination of mass immigration and relatively higher birthrates. Yet when Jeb Bush points out the obvious, he’s lambasted. If you want to discuss immigrant fertility, you’d better do so within the context of praising “diversity.”
But enough about leftist malcontents. What really interested me about the article was Bush’s insistence that immigrants replenish the economy, and his suggestion that we emulate Canada’s immigration policy. Canada’s immigration policy works so well because they “have more economic migrants, and have seen sustained economic growth because of it.”
I think Bush hit the nail on the head when he referred to “economic migrants.” Legal immigrants to countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia are highly successful and well educated in large part because they are part of a “brain drain.” They’re the cream of the crop back in their home countries, and are moving to the first world for better job opportunities. All those stereotypically smart and successful Indian doctors and engineers aren’t coming from the Dalit and Shudra castes.
Unfortunately, those “fertile” immigrants he’s referring to are not the highly educated, elite Asian immigrants that dominate Silicon Valley. They are primarily poor, low-skilled Latino immigrants who mostly hail from Central America. They’re the ones whose kids drop out of high school at around twenty percent. However much they may contribute to the nation’s aggregate wealth in the form of menial labor, they are nonetheless contributing to this country’s growing underclass.
When pro-immigration advocates want to sell open borders, they always want to highlight Dr. Patel or computer engineer Wong. Unfortunately, they don’t comprise the majority of immigrants. All those poor immigrants who add to this country’s underclass are a major part of the package.
For a better deconstruction (If I may wax cultural Marxist) of the follies of pro-open border arguments, see Lawrence Auster’s old but still relevant article “huddled clichés.”
More than anything else, Jeb Bush should demonstrate that both parties are committed to the third worldization of the United States. Democrats and liberals want to replace the traditionally white electorate, and Republicans want cheap labor for their corporate masters.
Just like race, differing fertility rates have now been rendered taboo. I’m sure some leftists will now attempt to argue that fertility rates are “social constructs,” as opposed to a significant trend that affects the demographic futures and very souls of nations.
Perhaps that’s the very point. How can white people be perceptive to the demographic displacement they face if the powers that be refuse to highlight this phenomenon in a manner that isn’t completely positive?