Not that American politicians are likely to take notice - to do so would be to indulge in nativism, or worse - notwithstanding the present saliency of the illegal immigration question. For, you must understand, it is one thing to take cognizance of the deleterious effects of illegal immigration - though even this is fraught with innumerable pitfalls of wrongthought - and quite another to notice that even legal immigration may alter the political and culture landscape in ways undesirable to the natives. Why, nations are arbitary constructs, mere temporary congealments of transient market relations, or invidious attempts to exclude and oppress The Other. What right have the 'natives' -a meaningless term, anyway - to keep something - which is nothing, really - to themselves? The audacity!
Not that American politicians are likely to notice then, that demographic change married to ethnic politicking has resulted in the ouster of John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister and Friend of Bush. After all, the dominant liberal world-picture cultivates habits of blindness, reality, including correlations between ethnicity and culture, or ethnicity and political proclivities, being a blasphemy against the solemn dignity of the Idea.
There is, though, a more cynical interpretation of this blindness, which I may as well express, given that I may be the most cynical contributor around these parts. It may well be that the establishment, political, corporate, and economic, is fully cognizant of the reality of cultural and political transformation, and considers this a feature, and not a bug, of present policies. After all, such transformations, "inexorable" and "irresistible", are guaranteed to remove, as a viable political force, those atavistic cultural formations which, as yet, still constitute obstacles to the international order of the superman, unconditioned by particularity and formed solely by the exercise of will (or consumer preference). Those forces may be obstacles in two not-unrelated senses: first, that they actively oppose the new, post-national system - by refusing comprehensive immigration reform, for example - and second, that they, more generally, compel the establishment to take note of them in order to acquire power. The establishment requires the votes of those who are held in contempt in order to maintain the facade of legitimacy; hence, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" could become, with the passage of time and the passage of millions more immigrants through the turnstiles, "Who Gives a Fig About Kansas?" No one really does; it's merely a matter of being able to rid oneself of the pretense that one does that ultimately matters to the establishment.
(HT: Steve Sailer)