A good friend e-mailed text of a speech "How To Destroy America" by former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm.
The speech was delivered to "an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC" and I found the text on this site
Governor Lamm made some good points about the historical records of great nations who have "committed suicide" by dividing and embracing multiple cultures and languages.
I don't want to do him a disservice in paraphrasing, the speech is short, punchy and well worth a read. The audience, including Rep. Tancredo and Professor VDH, was moved:
"Having made America a bilingual--bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology', I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: "That because immigration has been good for America, it must ALWAYS be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them." In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. The profound silence allowed me to hear my heart beating. Finally, he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book 'MEXIFORNIA'. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity'. American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as greedy corporations create a Third World in America-take note of California and other states-to date, 10 million illegal aliens and growing, fast.
Gov. Lamm makes some good points and it grieves me to differ with Prof VDH as he is about 6000 times as smart as me.But I think they are both off track on this. Gov Lamm made great waves during his tenure with Malthusian population predictions. The joke at the time said "The Governor's baby weighed eight pounds at birth -- when it weighed 16 pounds he said 'My God! in 11 years this child will weigh 64,000 pounds!!!!'"
That relates to his population theory and much of the current debate. It's worthy to look at long-term issues but extrapolation should be taken with a grain of salt.
I would of course like to see more assimilation, English supported as the sole national language and less censorship against those who question diversity and multiculturalism. Yet there are some strange bedfellows in that movement with which I am not comfortable. Even Professor Hansen sees an immigrant as a mouth to feed rather than a worker contributing to the economy.
For the record, I like W's guest worker program a lot. Provide a legal way to work, then tighten the restrictions on long-term visits and citizenship.
Like the Libertarian Party, I am sympathetic to their ideas but many of these guys are too wacko for me to join (Tom Tancredo [R-CO[ and the lovely Michelle Malkin come to mind, as does Bill "Put the Army on the Border!" O'Reilly).
I share the concern of these "too wacko" guys that the partial assimilation of - it is now 18-20 million and growing - illegal alien residents will not "keep our culture alive" but replace our culture with their's, at least in part. I don't have a huge problem with this, except when it comes to the liberty, capitalistic free-market aspects of our culture.
The point of the immigration debate is that if we are going to allow/condone/facilitate illegal immigration into this country, why bother having any immigration rules or enforcement whatsoever? You are focusing on the half-full part of the glass, where illegals come here for the opportunity of achievement. But this doesn't eliminate the empty half where illegals are just clamoring upon our gravy train.
Of course the real solution to this, and many other, social problems is to pull that gravy train into terminal station. If our society provided no "safety net" or "public compassion" (funded by confiscation of private wealth) then not only would the deadbeat half of the immigration influx be stemmed, we might see more of our own deadbeats beating it for France, or Sweden, or Holland. Or, they might simply perish and cease to reproduce more of their kind. What would be so bad about that?
Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2005 01:07 PMYours is the best solution, brother johngalt! Without entitlements, you could open the borders and expect only those who wanted to prosper in freedom. (I just don't see this as too likely...)
A large immigrant population will certainly change the culture (I'm old-fashioned enough to still believe in "The Melting Pot." That'll get you thrown out of college today). But I do not think it necessarily threatens your (and my) belief in freedom and capitalism. Immigration traditionally attracts those who value hard work and risk -- because both are required to emigrate.
I don't think we're that far off. If you legalize, by which I mean document and control, the flow from Mexico. You can keep the full half who wish to work, but it gives you logistical, legal and moral capabilities to evict the half empty crowd. The language and food may get a little more Mexican (mmmm Mexican Food...) but the core beliefs we cherish will be safe in the hands of the new culture.
Privatization of SS would be a good step in the right direction but you're right, a complete elimination of entitlements is not too likely.
Why? Too good an idea?
No, it's because it would be the death knell for altruism. Alas, I hope to see the day in my lifetime when the bell does toll for that archaic, primative, totalitarian, ANTI-AMERICAN ideal.
Posted by: johngalt at January 4, 2005 08:05 PMYou and I have had this argument before. I will vote with you to eliminate all entitlements, but we will lose about 78,456,782 to 4.
AlexC has a plan to eliminate SS on his pstupidonymous blog (see blogroll) -- I just don't see a plurality ever supporting this.
Our beautiful Constitution gives self-determination and a level of "softening" is very popular. While you launch into a philosophical debate and I give them a link to some Hayek essay, our opponents will show a picture of a poor child and we will lose 78,456,782 to 4.
That, my friend, is precisely why the founders of our republic did not leave certain things up to a vote. They were rightly concerned that the tyranny imposed by a majority of voters can be every bit as bloodthirsty as that of an individual megalomaniacal dictator.
When forced altruism dies it will be through realization that it is immoral - like slavery, back in the day.
Posted by: johngalt at January 6, 2005 12:59 PM