poor, poor xenophobes

23 Nov 2009

ACK wrote today about the CIS and its supposed links to hate/racist groups:

To characterize someone or a group as marginal and outside the lines of permissible dissent, you need demonstrable evidence — more than just a decades-old donation and guilt by association.

Okay, so, I don’t have a lot to add here except some pithy commentary. Aunt B probably knows more about the background of CIS. Mostly I just wanted to respond to this:

Calling the Center for Immigration Studies a hate group does nothing but radicalize and marginalize people who already feel alienated.

Boo fucking hoo. The unfortunate reality for anti-immigration advocates is that they are literally xenophobic, and there’s a not a wide gulf between xenophobia and outright racism – either as a philosophical state or in the people you tend to find yourself circulating with. And from a cursory review of the CIS’s literature, they’re not advocating open borders and they openly oppose amnesty. So they’re not merely anti-“illegal immigration”, they’re anti-immigration. Fear or dislike of foreigners. That’s xenophobia. I mean, by definition. No, really, look it up. A lot of anti-immigration advocates seem to live in a state of perpetual denial that they are, in fact, xenophobic – even to the extent of feigning shock/outrage at being labeled as such. Take Donna Locke in the comments here, for example. Because I’ve called her xenophobic in the past, this somehow translates to “calling her ugly names”. I’m not name-calling, I’m just using words.

So, this wide-eyed, shocked appeal to martyrdom is a little tired, to me. When you cast your lot with the xenophobes, you can’t act all shocked and indignant at the association. There is a difference between xenophobia and racism, yes, and it’s worth pointing out. But, please, spare me the persecution complex. Poor, misunderstood, downtrodden white majority, being picked on by the big bad minority immigration advocates. Give me a break.