Will the Real Bigots Please Stand Up?
Along with “racist,” one of the common insults immigrationists hurl at restrictionists is “bigot.” In their view, it seems, any criticism of the status quo of mass immigration and lax border control reveals bigotry. To assess the truth of this claim, let’s refer to Webster’s New World Dictionary, which defines a bigot as “a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular, creed, opinion, etc.”
From this definition we can deduce that bigotry is a moral failing because it can prevent the kind of thinking and questioning needed to move us from falsehood to truth. With this understanding we might ask who the real bigots are.
Quite often restrictionists question the status quo. They ask if we still need an immigration policy in the 21st century which may have made sense in the horse-and- buggy America of the 1800s when we had a relatively small population and an abundance of wide open spaces where people could settle and prosper.
They also wonder if our country can keep its harmony and freedom with unchecked diversity—fueled by mass immigration—pulling us apart. Will racial and ethnic hatred and intolerance increase or decrease as we splinter into a profusion of balkanized enclaves? At that point, can anything short of a repressive government hold us together? They also wonder if we can remain a middle class society if mass immigration, without let-up from poor countries, continues to pull down our wage level and living standards. And finally they ask if America can remain America the Beautiful as our environment strains to accommodate an ever soaring population.
In response to these queries and speculations, immigrationists rarely reply with reasoned arguments. Instead, they usually raise their voices and intone the sacred mantras of their faith: “We are a nation of immigrants” and “Diversity is our strength.” If that doesn’t work to silence opponents, then they follow up with the often-flung anathemas, invectives and curses of their creed: “racist” . . . “xenophobe” . . . “hater” . . . and, yes indeed, “bigot.”
Some immigrationists are so stressed by questions and contrary views that they don’t even want to hear them at all. To silence speech they hate, they have taken to calling it “hate speech.” Not too long ago a representative of the National Council of La Raza (The Race) berated CNN anchor Lou Dobbs for his commentary against illegal immigration. She suggested that Dobbs’ bosses should silence his “hate speech.”
Many in our country seem inclined to make so-called “hate speech” a “hate crime,” using the force of the state to censor and prosecute unwanted expression about immigration and other issues. No doubt they draw inspiration from the speech control regimes of Europe and Canada. In that later country, our neighbor to the north, tribunals ironically named “human rights commissions” hold a legal stick over Canadians who say politically incorrect things about immigrants and other protected groups.
Some time ago, Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, had this to say about these bodies, “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society. . . . It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this very scary stuff.”
Now again, let’s consider the definition of a bigot: “a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular, creed, opinion.” If we may paraphrase a question from an old television show: Will the real bigots please stand up?