Smug, self-satisfied left-libertarians like to dream that their constituency is differently derived, but the demographic facts are straightforward. As the GOP goes, so goes the libertarian movement. We know this, but reminders are necessary: The upshot of continued, unfettered, mass immigration—as it is currently practiced and preached by American central planners—is the triumph of tribalism, pillage politics, and left-liberalism.
Over to Patrick J. Buchanan, in “Suicide of a Superpower”:
“White Americans, who provide nine out of ten Republican votes every presidential year, have fallen to less than two-thirds of the U.S. population and three-fourths of the electorate. Meanwhile, the number of people of color is growing, both as a share of the population and as a share of the electorate. An in presidential elections, people of color vote Democratic—in landslides. Asians vote 60 percent Democratic, Hispanic 60-70 percent, and African American 90-95 percent.” (Page 338.)
POIGNANTLY PUT, “Either the Republican Party puts an end to mass immigration, or mass immigration will put an end to the Republican Party.” (Page 423.)
[SNIP]
Ditto the future of a philosophy (libertarianism) which offers far fewer distributive spoils than does the Republican Party, yet demands from voters more by way of reason, for they must understand that less loot is better for them and their posterity.
The future dispensation of America, once the host population has been swamped and consigned to minority status, will be that of a third-world dominated, dominant-party state.
UPDATE: Texas is most certainly not “stubbornly Republican,” it is barely Republican; it is hanging on to a Republican slim majority by the proverbial hairs of its chinny chin chin:
“For the first time in the state’s history, Texas is now a majority-minority state, and the new round of redistricting will likely create at least one, and probably two majority-minority districts in Texas.” (via Race 4 2012)
Texas won’t be Republican for long.
Michel Cloutier: Canada has a different immigration complexion. It also has a different immigration process. Canada has something of a merit system, although, like the US, the overwhelming numbers of incomers result from the family unification aberration. However, in Canada legal immigration is driven by a point system. You get points for education, language (only English or French: OMG, how chauvinistic) and age. Your profession should also be in-line with the country’s needs. The US is a work-visa system, with one, not-always worthy sponsor acting as a ticket for a tribe.
As Michel points out, Canada has large Chinese and Indian immigration populations, which are somewhat less welfare dependent, more educated and socially conservative, and have less of a representation among the ranks of law-breakers. Are they less inclined to vote liberal?