The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
California Recall Election

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Does the California election prove that Republicans can now win the Hispanic vote? That’s what some pundits are claiming because of the comparatively low support won by professional Hispanic candidate Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (54 percent) and the supposedly high support captured by winner Arnold Schwarzenegger (30 percent).

As usual, of course, the pundits are full of fly specks.

First of all, Senor Bustamante’s relatively low Hispanic support doesn’t mean his Republican opponents did unusually well. The headline of a post-election article in the Los Angeles Times last week crowed that GOP makes gains among Latinos,“[By Rich Connell and Daniel Hernandez, October 11, 2003] though the body of the story is a bit more subdued.

It turns out that the “gains” won by the two Republican candidates, Mr. Schwarzenegger and state Sen. Tom McClintock, were mainly among upper-income (indeed, high income) Hispanics.

“Half of Latino voters in homes earning $60,000 to $100,000,”the Times story reports, supported one of the two Republicans, while “in Latino households with earnings above $100,000, 57% supported the recall and 60% voted for Schwarzenegger or McClintock. The pattern followed that of voters overall.” So why is that surprising?

As I noted in a recent column, 25 to 30 percent of Hispanic voters in California have always voted Republican, and 37 percent voted for Proposition 187 in 1994, a measure widely regarded as anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant because it cut off public benefits to illegal aliens. Probably most of the Hispanics who do vote Republican are upper-income, and the portion of the Hispanic vote won by the two Republicans (39 percent) is hardly unusual or new.

But, as for the GOP now having a good chance to win more Hispanic votes in the future, don’t bet your annual income on it. As the Timesalso notes , “Statewide, low-income Latinos opposed the recall and supported Bustamante by the widest margins: In each case more than three out of five voters in households earning less than $40,000, according to the poll.”

And the point is that in California, thanks to the mass immigration imported by the Open Borders lobby, lower income Hispanics dominate in the Hispanic electorate.

The real reason Mr. Schwarzenegger won, as both I and UPI political analyst Steve Sailer have pointed out, is that he won the white vote, which remains critical for any Republican victory. He took the white vote by 51 percent, and the two Republicans together took 65-67 percent of it. Mr. Schwarzenegger’s share was not so impressive but better than earlier Republican gubernatorial candidates in the state’s last two elections, who won well less than 50 percent.

Taken together, the two Republicans’ share in this election means simply this: Whites have largely deserted the Democrats, and that’s the real reason they lost.

Moreover, it’s why the Republican won, though you might find it hard to persuade him of that. A new poll sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) shows that Democratic Gov. Gray Davis’ support for letting illegal immigrants get driver’s licenses was a decisive factor. The poll shows that “30 percent of voters said Davis’ approval of the bill influenced their decision to support the recall,” CNS News reported this week. Since Mr. Schwarzenegger was opposed to the bill, it makes sense the voters who agreed with him on that issue were attracted to him.

Since he also had supported Prop 187 itself and had its chief backer, former Gov. Pete Wilson in his campaign, Mr. Schwarzenegger really didn’t have to say much about immigration at all. Voters assumed he would be tough on it. They assumed wrong.

Presumably voters who opposed driver’s licenses for illegals are also opposed to amnesty, yet the fact is that Mr. Schwarzenegger endorsed amnesty during the campaign. He avoided the word, but in his first press conference after the election he made his position perfectly clear.

The governor-elect endorsed the stealth amnesty bill sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Sen. John McCain that would allow illegal immigrants to gain “temporary” work visas.

“I want to make all undocumented immigrants documented and legal in this country,” he said.

That’s why Mr. Schwarzenegger doesn’t seem to grasp why he won or the latent racial dynamics of the election. Whites supported him (and Mr. McClintock, who took much the same position on drivers’ licenses but a somewhat tougher one on illegal immigration) because of those positions. They supported the recall and deserted the Democrats for the same reason.

And what that means is that the Republicans don’t need to chuckle over how swell they did among Hispanics or worry what one or another GOP candidate might say against immigration.

What they need to worry about is whether they can keep the white vote—especially after Mr. Schwarzenegger essentially betrayed his own white voters by endorsing the amnesty they thought he opposed.

🔊 Listen RSS

If recent polls on the California gubernatorial race are at all accurate, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will not win the election, but he will certainly come closer than most other candidates. That’s because Mr. Bustamante enjoys an advantage most other candidates, including the (still) likely winner, Arnold Schwarzenegger, don’t—namely racial solidarity.

Because Mr. Bustamante is Hispanic and exploited that identity in the campaign and because, thanks to the mass immigration the Open Borders lobby has helped import into the state, some 14 percent of the California electorate today is Hispanic, and because Hispanics in California (and most other states) vote as a racially solid bloc, Mr. Bustamante is slated to win their support by an overwhelming margin.

A Washington Post story last week made clear that the lieutenant governor “has three times more support among Latino voters than any other major candidate in the election.” That may not be enough—this time—to elect him governor, but it puts him well ahead of most of his rivals.

The story also makes clear, though it doesn’t quite say so, why Hispanic voters are so keen on Mr. Bustamante. It’s because they think of themselves as a unit—”we”—and of Mr. Bustamante as “one of us.” [ For Latinos, Recall Is a Rare Opportunity | Bustamante Strongly Favored in Community, By Rene Sanchez, Washington Post,September 30, 2003]

“It’s a chance we’ve never experienced before,” one Hispanic lawyer told the Post. “We’ve never been this close.”

Another Hispanic voter bubbled happily at the prospect of racial power Mr. Bustamante’s campaign offered: “We’re no longer the minority in California, but I still feel like we’re 20 years behind everyone else.”

With the exception of black voters, there is no other sizable ethnic group in the state or the country that identifies as “we” more strongly.

What the Hispanic “we” feels is not at all the same thing Irish Americans, for example, felt when John F. Kennedy was elected (if “elected” is quite the right word for the way Kennedy became president). Americans of Irish descent who felt joy at Kennedy’s victory did not plan to take over the country or claim the country was now “theirs.” But that’s exactly what Hispanic voters in California seem to express.

As the Post reports, “In Latino communities across the Central Valley, some activists are preoccupied with promoting Bustamante’s candidacy, not saving [Gray] Davis. They are going door-to-door and deluging voters with phone calls in the hope that will spur a huge turnout at the polls.”

It would be stretching to claim that most Hispanic voters share the bizarre anti-Americanism of the Voz de Aztlan, the racial nationalist newspaper supporting MEChA, the Chicano Student Movement for Aztlan, that has just endorsed Mr. Bustamante and whose endorsement he has not rejected.

Nevertheless, its language is worth quoting.

“Next Tuesday October 7, Nuestra Raza [Our Race] will have an unprecedented and outstanding opportunity to elect one of our own as Governor of Alta California. It has been a very long struggle since the invasion of our territories and this election will not be handed to us in a silver platter. We must do everything humanly possible to bring out our gente to vote on October 7. Every community committee and MEChA Chapter throughout the state must work diligently and tirelessly next Tuesday to bring out the vote on behalf of Cruz Bustamante. Remember ‘Dump Davis – Elect Bustamante.’”

“Throughout the recall campaign, Cruz Bustamante has proven himself to be a loyal soldier for La Raza,” the editorial exults.

And indeed so far Mr. Bustamante has said and done nothing to suggest he is not a loyal soldier for his race.

No other candidate in this campaign or, except for most black candidates, in the rest of the country enjoys the kind of racially driven voter support that Mr. Bustamante possesses, nor does any other court political support on the basis of race as brazenly. No white group of any kind supports Mr. Schwarzenegger or his rival Tom McClintock because he is believed to be “a loyal soldier for his race.”

And no white candidate could receive an endorsement from a white group because of race without being forced immediately to reject the endorsement and denounce the group. White racism or even the hint of it is enough to get Rush Limbaugh canned. Anti-white racism is OK.

That’s one lesson the Bustamante campaign ought to drive into the feeble minds of whites dumb enough to have welcomed the mass immigration that now begins to swallow them.

But another lesson of the anti-white racial nationalism now nearing triumph at the polls is what it means for the dwindling numbers of whites in the state.

What it means, to put it as bluntly as possible, is cultural and political subordination to the new “we” now emerging as California’s—and eventually the country’s—ruling race.

🔊 Listen RSS

Hooray, Hooray! Federal judges, in their wisdom, mercy and benevolence, have now ruled that the people of California may indeed hold the election and recall that they decided to hold several months ago.

It’s just like democracy, isn’t it, where the people themselves rather than unelected magistrates get to determine such matters?

Nevertheless, after the staged debate among the candidates in California last week, maybe the judges were on to something the first time.

Despite the obvious truth that mass immigration, legal and illegal, has been at least a major and probably the main reason for the state’s fiscal and other problems, there was no intelligent discussion of the issue at all. What passes for such discussion has now shriveled to whether illegal immigrants should be able to get driver’s licenses. There is virtually no discussion, let alone concerted opposition, to illegal immigration itself and absolutely no mention of the much larger and more serious problem of legal immigration.

There is no discussion of these issues because both parties and all candidates (except a few minor ones) now accept the premise on which mass immigration is based—that the old American society and its homogeneous population of British and European people were bad, something we must reject and try to overcome, and therefore that mass immigration from the non-white, non-Western Third World is necessary and desirable.

It was Governor Gray Davis, the target of the recall, who perhaps has most explicitly invoked this premise or at least its immediate corollary, as he did in a remark cited by the New York Times last week. Campaigning in Sacramento, Mr. Davis pronounced,

“My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state.”

Aside from Mr. Davis’ apparent ignorance of what a planet is, the presupposition of the statement is that there is something wrong with the non-diverse society and people of the old California.

But Mr. Davis is by no means alone unique. Almost every significant political figure (and many insignificant ones) has said something like this in recent years.

Thus, Bill Clinton, in a 1997 interview, remarked of mass immigration,“This will arguably be the third great revolution in America,”proving that we can live “without in effect having a dominant European culture. We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society. We’re not going to disintegrate in the face of it.”

Only two years later in 1999 Gen. Wesley Clark, then in command of U.S. troops in Serbia and today the most recent Democratic presidential candidate, remarked to a CNN reporter, “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That is a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”

Nor is the rejection of homogeneity, ethnic and cultural, confined to Democrats.

In a campaign speech in Miami in 2000, George W. Bush declared,

“America has one national creed, but many accents. We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change—some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.”

There are few Republicans today who would express any disagreement.

The premise common to all these statements is that the old, homogeneous society and people of America are problems to be overcome and deplored and that the mass immigration that the national political class—both parties and all major candidates—is the way to overcome them.

Yet it was precisely that old, homogeneous society and people that created the real, historic America—every major person, event, and institution that occurred in American history down to the 1960s.

It’s one thing to recognize that the old America and its population said, did, and believed some things we now don’t believe or approve of, but if you reject them the way the leading political leaders of our time do, then you are rejecting the nation itself as well as the people who created it.

The bolder leaders who utter these remarks would not deny that, but the Americans who vote for them need to know what they have said and what their remarks mean.

What they mean is that the mass immigration that they welcome is not just a mistake but a deliberate weapon in the destruction of an entire civilization and people.

🔊 Listen RSS

Well, so much for what passes for “democracy” in the merry old New World Order.

With a flick of their Bics, three federal judges succeeded in smothering (“postponing,” in the euphemism favored by the press) the most recent breath of grassroots political wind that was blowing the recall movement in California and the campaigns of 135 candidates for the governorship.

Of course it was not the first time the courts have strangled populist resistance, and unless they are brought under control, it will not be the last.

Not long after the victory of California’s 1994 Proposition 187, which sought to terminate most public services for illegal aliens, the same federal court struck down the popularly passed ballot measure as “unconstitutional.” A couple of years before, a court struck down the popular effort by the people of Colorado to amend their own constitution with language that forbade granting homosexuals any special rights.

I omit, for the sake of brevity, the encyclopedia of court decisions, from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 through any number of rulings on school prayer, abortion, pornography, etc., down to the Supreme Court’s brainless decisions on affirmative action and state laws against sodomy last summer.

The point is clear enough: Whatever beliefs and values the actual people of the United States want their local and state communities to uphold and enforce, whether immigration control, religion, sexual morals, or race relations, the federal judiciary will decide whether they are proper or not.

Whenever voters wish to challenge the way they are being ruled, either by changing laws or recalling elected officials, the judiciary will make certain those wishes are thwarted.

The California decision last week was merely the latest installment of the same message the courts have been transmitting to Americans for generations: Shut up, sit down, and do what you’re told.

Unlike most critics of the courts, I do not blame the courts themselves or the judges who run them. I blame the American political class in general and the voters who keep it in office and the judges in power.

Any healthy people would long ago have impeached or actually lynched the judges who hand down these ridiculous, self-interested and outright dangerous rulings or would simply have ignored them, in the same way we ignore harmless cranks who babble about the Lost Continent of Mu or the truth about the assassination of Princess Diana.

But Americans’ long tolerance of these stupid, unwanted and harmful court rulings means that judges have no reason whatsoever to stop or correct themselves. The unwillingness of Californians to resist or ignore a ruling that openly thwarts the will of the 900,000 voters who signed the recall petition and pitches into the garbage the $60 million or more being spent on the election means there is probably nothing the courts cannot do and get away with.

Of course the rulings are not merely the random fantasies that roam the fevered brains of the judges and clerks who concoct them. They serve a purpose, which is to destroy the historic American civilization and the people who created it, to lock into power those who wish to advance that destruction and to help build the foundations of the New America that twitters in their mind’s eye like a bat at twilight.

In that New America, the people who count will not be the historic population of the nation, but the “minorities” already well on the way to becoming the “majority.” The court’s decision last week was careful to base itself on concern for their interests.

The suit against the recall was launched by the ACLU, along with the NAACP and the Southwest Voters Registration Education Project, a Hispanic lobby, and their main argument, which the court endorsed, was that the voting procedures would in effect discriminate against and “disenfranchise” non-white voters.

But why can’t “voters of color,” as the court’s language called those who brought the complaint, cast their ballots like everyone else? Why should electoral laws and procedures be struck down and engineered to suit their preferences and interests? Why are the millions of voters preparing to vote in the scheduled election not being “disenfranchised” by the court’s decision? [Read the decision here]

The answer, of course, is that the country now belongs to or is about to fall into the possession of those “minorities” and the judges, politicians and others in the American ruling class willing and eager to serve them.

Hence, not only the old culture itself and its symbols but also the laws, the institutions, the power must be “adapted” to the new, emerging order.

Americans who remain loyal to the old America tend to think they still live within it.

The first step toward taking it back is for them to understand that that America is no longer at the same address.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: California Recall Election 
🔊 Listen RSS

With California’s Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante now leading in the polls to be the state’s next governor, the silence about his anti-white past is thunderous.

Neither the mainstream press nor his comrades in the Democratic Party nor even most of his rivals in the election have mentioned it.

As for the professional witch hunters of hate like the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a peep has passed their usually over-worked lips.

Yet Mr. Bustamante’s past associations need explanation and, given the fashionable squalling about “racism,” no small amount of simple repudiation.

He himself has refused both, and why shouldn’t he refuse when no one else – especially those who make a profession out of denouncing “racism” and “extremism”—say nothing themselves?

The problem with Mr. Bustamante is that he is a past member of a student organization known by its Spanish initials as “MEChA,” an abbreviation that stands for “Chicano Student Movement for Aztlan,” “Aztlan” being the name of the country they plan to establish where the Southwestern United States now lies after they kick out or kill all the whites who live there.

Aside from its cultivation of a violent rhetoric that, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, ought to give most Americans pause, MEChA is pretty explicit about its anti-white agenda. Its statement of purpose,“El Plan de Aztlan,” opens up with the sentiment ,

“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal ‘gringo’ invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility and our inevitable destiny.”

That was enough for former Ku Klux Klan leader Tom Metzger, who endorsed Mr. Bustamante as a kindred soul last week and beamed of the statement, “If that isn’t racist, I don’t know what is.”

Mr. Bustamante himself, despite repeated calls from various conservatives to renounce the statement and the group, simply refuses.

Indeed, he reaffirms the value of his connections with it. “I think the actuality of what takes place in those organizations is to provide student leadership. For me, and many, many others, we were running for student government. That’s how I got here today,”he told WorldNetDaily recently.

The problem is not so much what Mr. Bustamante believes or the organization to which he used to belong. As I have long argued, Hispanic or Latino “nationalism” is really an anti-white racial nationalist movement driven by the mass immigration that the Open Borders lobby has forced upon this country, and Mr. Bustamante’s affiliations with that movement and its beliefs shouldn’t be surprising.

Conservatives who are just now blubbering about it should have sniffed the coffee years ago.

Mr. Bustamante’s racial associations are more important for what they tell us about the whole business of anti-racism.

What they tell is that anti-racism really isn’t about “racism” at all. It’s only against “white racism.”

Thus, both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have said virtually nothing about Mr. Bustamante or MEChA, despite the latter’s history of anti-Semitism.

The SPLC and its founder, Morris Dees, have been far too busy denouncing Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, while the ADL has been riding herd on such dangerous anti-Semites as actor Mel Gibson for his new film about the crucifixion of Christ.

No doubt these are far greater threats to racial harmony and civil rights than the prospect of an anti-white racial nationalist with ties to an organization with a history of anti-white, anti-American, and anti-Jewish beliefs being elected governor of California.

Nor do we hear much about Mr. Bustamante’s past from our friends the neo-conservatives. Back in 1994 neo-cons Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett went out their way to denounce Prop 187, California’s ballot measure that would have cut off most public services to illegal aliens, but we hear nothing from them today about the leading contender for the governor’s chair.

Neo-conservative Linda Chavez found time to apologize for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s support for Prop 187, but she too has been pretty mum about the past of his chief rival in the election.

For all of them “racism” is OK as long as its directed against whites. Then, you see, it’s not “racism” at all but “passion,” ” sensitivity,” “civil rights,” or “multiculturalism.”

“Racism” is not OK only when whites express it or even hint at it.

If the great experiment in multiracial democracy that is about to unfold in California should teach us anything, it is the transparent hypocrisy of “anti-racism” and the agenda for an anti-white power grab it conceals.

🔊 Listen RSS

The 900-pound gorilla standing in the middle of the California governor’s race that no one dares mention is not Arnold Schwarzenegger but the issue of immigration. Actually, quite a few do mention it, but so far not one of the major candidates has done so. The only people who talk about it are the candidates who have no chance of winning.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, whom most observers say is the likely winner, doesn’t utter much of a peep about immigration, legal or illegal, except to take what is now almost a dangerously right-wing extremist position that illegal aliens shouldn’t get drivers’ licenses. Since he supported Proposition 187, widely viewed as an immigration restriction measure, and since the head of his campaign is former Gov. Pete Wilson, who won re-election by wrapping himself in Prop 187, the muscleman’s silence on immigration is a bit odd.

But it’s no more unusual than the silence of every other major candidate. Last week the Washington Times reported that “Many of those running in the California recall election are pushing for curbs on illegal immigration – almost everyone, it seems, except the major candidates” and “from [Democratic Gov. Gray] Davis, to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger to independent Arianna Huffington, the candidates who have grabbed most of the attention are largely silent on illegal immigration”—not to mention the legal variety. [[Top recall hopefuls quiet on illegals, By Stephen Dinan, August 28, 2003]]

Those who do campaign on it include Douglas Anderson, a mortgage broker, pornographer Larry Flynt, and others who advocate controlling illegal immigration and protecting the border, but the main and probably most serious and responsible immigration control advocate in the race is school teacher Joe Guzzardi, who actually knows something (indeed, quite a bit) about the issue. He writes a local newspaper column about it and, when Jay Leno invited all 135 gubernatorial candidates onto his show, had the good sense and taste to decline.

Mr. Guzzardi has no illusions he will win, but he also has no intention of lowering himself and the major issue facing his state and the country to the same level as the porn kings and New Age goofballs who will perform in Mr. Leno’s circus.

So why don’t the major candidates mention immigration, especially since polls show that 70 to 85 percent of Americans want it reduced and controlled? One answer, offered to the Times by political scientist Ricardo Ramirez, is that no one demands they deal with it.

“The mainstream candidates aren’t focusing on immigration, and a big reason is the public isn’t focusing on that,” the professor says. That’s probably true, but it really doesn’t explain an awful lot, and in an important way, he has it backwards.

The art of serious political leadership is to tell voters what they should know and think. In most cases, the “public,” the “people,” the “electorate” don’t tell the leaders what to do because the leaders are telling the voters. On the immigration issue, the “public isn’t focusing” because the leaders refuse to discuss it at all.

The leaders, in other words, have not made immigration an issue, and one reason they haven’t is that they’re either afraid to do so (that would be “racist” or “xenophobic” or some other label stationed at the gates of public discussion to keep out unwanted ideas), or they’re compromised on it—they owe too much to or want the support of groups that want mass immigration to keep coming—agribusiness, the teachers’ unions, the Hispanic lobby, the Thought Police in general.

The term political scientists use for the degree to which voters will vote for or against a candidate because of his position on a particular issue is “saliency.”

Immigration does not have high saliency, you see, because while voters may be opposed to it, it’s not what causes them to cast a vote for or against a candidate.

But the saliency concept is also a bit of a vicious circle. The reason immigration lacks saliency is that candidates don’t talk about it. And another reason they don’t is that until recently mass immigration, while undesirable, was not a serious national danger. What should have changed that was a couple of airplane crashes on Sept. 11, 2001.

What 9/11 showed is that by letting just anybody and everybody into the country, we were inviting the very sort of massive terrorist attacks that actually happened—as well as the crime, drug dealing, ethnic and cultural conflicts and other problems associated with immigration.

And that means that even major candidates ought to be talking about the immigration crisis and what we should do about it.

The fact that they don’t and won’t tells us a lot more about what’s wrong with the major candidates—and the condition of American “democracy”—than it does about the voters they say they want to lead.

🔊 Listen RSS

Not the least of the evils of the improbable emergence of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a political candidate is that, after years of having to endure journalists’ over-worked sport with Ronald Reagan’s “Where’s the rest of me” and Charlton Heston’s roles as Moses and Ben Hur, we now must put up with an endless series of not-very-clever puns on Mr. Schwarzenegger’s not-very-good films, the titles of most of which rather easily lend themselves to bad political wordplay:“Conan the Barbarian,” “Total Recall,” and the interminable “Terminator” movies.

Nevertheless, relief may already loom on the horizon.

Relief in this case is the distinct possibility that by the time of California’s special gubernatorial election on October 7, there may not be anyone left in the state to vote in it.

Last week the Los Angeles Times reported that in the last years of the twentieth century, the state actually lost population. “More than 1.4 million people in the U.S. migrated to California from 1995 to 2000, while 2.2 million left – the highest migration numbers in the country,” the paper noted, an exodus that one demographer labels “unprecedented.” [California Is Seen in Rearview Mirror,August 6, 2003 By Susannah Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times]

The stereotype of California in the American mind has long been that it’s the place you go where you’ve already been everywhere else –the final destination for transcontinental pilgrims from the Gold Rush to Hollywood glitter.

What is unprecedented is that that image is now fading — along with the people who created it.

And why exactly is it that so many people are leaving the Golden State? The Times really doesn’t say.

Another demographer it interviewed suggested as reasons such problems as housing costs, economic factors and relocation of retirees.” Swell, but why are those problems that afflict California in particular?

Could it just possibly be that mass immigration from Mexico and Central America has something to do with it?

Naw, it couldn’t possibly be that the arrival of about 12 million immigrants into the state in the last few decades has contributed to overcrowding, less available and affordable housing, higher taxes, more crime, more congestion, and a quality of life that older Americans, who remember a different style of living, would like to avoid.

“The No. 1 reason people move to and from California is because of jobs,” the demographer told the paper. All those Americans who refuse to take the jobs the immigrants do, you see, are packing up and leaving the state — to look for jobs in places where there are fewer immigrants to take them.

Of course, the Open Borders lobby always told us that wouldn’t happen, that there would be jobs for everyone regardless of mass immigration.

Well, you know how reliable the Open Borders lobby is.

The theory that mass immigration may have encouraged Californians to pack up and get out is not simply my own wild surmise. As long ago as 1995, in an article in the New York Times Magazine, University of Michigan demographer William H. Frey and reporter Jonathan Tilove wrote about the flight of Americans (mainly whites) from larger metropolitan areas:

“For every immigrant who arrives [in large metropolitan areas], a white person leaves. Look collectively at the New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and Boston metropolitan areas—5 of the top 11 immigration destinations. In the last half of the 80′s, for every 10 immigrants who arrived, 9 residents left for points elsewhere. And most of those leaving were non-Hispanic whites…. The places that whites were leaving for were metro areas like Tampa-St. Petersburg, Seattle, Phoenix, Atlanta and Las Vegas, all of which attract relatively few immigrants.”

The Los Angeles Times article last week noted that the California fugitives were moving to places like “Nevada, Arizona and Texas,” more or less the same places Professor Frey and his co-author mentioned.

What the Times has apparently just noticed happening in California has been going on for years, and as Professor Frey and Mr. Tilove pointed out, “The trend constitutes a new, larger form of white flight.”Back in the 1960s, whites fled their neighborhoods and moved to the suburbs as housing was desegregated. Then they fled the suburbs and either created new ones or moved to the country.

Now they are fleeing entire states. Sooner or later they will start leaving the country itself.

It’s probably too much to ask that Mr. Schwarzenegger, let alone any of his rivals in the coming election, will try to call attention to the impact that mass immigration has already inflicted on the state they want to govern. A good many of the people who might have voted for a candidate who talked seriously about immigration have probably already left.

For those who are still there by October 7, it probably makes little difference any more for whom they vote or who actually wins.

Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”