This GD thread – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310224 – on the Minutemen Project brought to mind a passage I read a few years ago in Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, by Christopher Hitchens (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1990), discussing the “official English” movement of 1988:
That was then, this is now. There are a lot of American “immigration reductionists” who could not plausibly be accused of racism. Commentator Michael Lind of the “Radical Centrist” New America Foundation (http://www.newamerica.net/), for instance, opposes immigration because it drives down wages for American workers (and accuses the “white overclass” of favoring it for the exact same reason); but he also has often written of a racial melting pot in America as inevitable, desirable, and a process already well under way. And the Sierra Club – not traditionally a racist organization – is at present undergoing an internal fight between its old guard and the Sierrans for U.S. Population Stabilization (http://www.susps.org/), which opposes immigration on the grounds that it leads to population growth and an even greater human burden on the U.S. ecosystem. (SUSPS’ opponents accuse it of actually being a Trojan horse, an attempt by racists to take over the Sierra Club – see http://www.groundswellsierra.org/nation_votes.php.)
Nevertheless, a racist element still seems to be present in the movement – although prominent anti-immigrationists like Pat Buchanan are usually more circumspect than Tanton was, couching their arguments in terms of “language” and “culture” and avoiding any unambiguously racist statements. From the Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_reductionism#Criticism_of_immigration_reductionism:
What do you think? Is it possible to separate immigration reductionism based on racism from immigration reductionism based on non-racist concerns? And if you sympathize with the latter, would you hold your nose and work alongside the racists, on “strange bedfellows” principles?