First off, I want to make it clear that the particular point in the post I’m linking to – genetics is not identical with culture, nor is race – is perfectly true. Anyone arguing otherwise is quite as wrong as Mr. Wright and Mr. Simon. Genetics are one aspect among many affecting how cultures and subcultures form in communities.
That said, Mr. Simon said this:
Why do you think that people should be entitled to be able to associate with other people, if those other people want to exclude them for any reason is beyond me!
Having people in a country of 300 million people spread over 3 million square miles does not equate to forcing you to associate with them. If you want to exclude people from your social circle, fine. If you want to exclude them from your country, that is another matter entirely. To put it bluntly, you are asking the law to forbid brown people from settling a thousand miles away from you, and that is a ridiculous demand.
This comment actually astonishes with me. There is one very obvious reason you might not want immigrants coming into the country, a reason that is unavoidable and has a profound effect on the country: Naturalized immigrants can vote.
For that matter, Mr. Simon has just about made a sterling argument in favor of illegal immigration as well: What, you have a problem with brown people settling thousands of miles away from you? What are you, a racist or something?
That he denies that there might be a noticeable effect from thousands or even millions of people coming into the country, that there is no way that such a situation could effect you personally, strikes me as unbelievably oblivious. It seems like such a crazy comment I wonder if I’m misunderstanding what he means.
The quick thing to point out is that he is responding specifically to the point that we will need to “associate” with these people, which is indeed technically not true. This doesn’t pass the smell test to me; it is obvious that the entire conversation was about whether or not we should be allowing certain groups of immigrants, from certain areas, with certain philosophical and cultural baggage, into the country en masse. Mr. Huntsman, the original commenter, may have worded it poorly but I don’t believe for a hot second Mr. Simon is stupid enough to think that’s what the point of contention really was.
For the record, I don’t oppose all immigration, though I think we should probably close it off now. Immigration ideally is safe, legal, and rare, with applicants for immigration carefully picked based on need and willingness to assimilate with the greater society. Perhaps that is one good reason for those forms G.K. Chesterton laughed at. In any case, mass immigration of any kind should probably be avoided.
The great irony here is that the concept of the proposition nation can actually be defended more successfully in a society that doesn’t allow voting!