An Australian Reader Critiques The Economist; Peter Brimelow Comments
NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON`T want your name
and/or email address published when sending VDARE
Steven Meyer writes from Melbourne, Australia.
The Economist may be the
most influential publication in the English-speaking
world. It has been consistently pro-immigration. The
latest issue (November 2nd – 8th 2002) carries a
leader article [= editorial] on immigration and a
Special Survey of migration. Here are some excerpts:
and religion must be part of the discussion of
article, page 11.) This is the first time I have
seen The Economist state that race and religion
should be part of a discussion about anything.
balance, host countries benefit only slightly from
immigration, whereas immigrants benefit hugely."
"It [immigration] does
not seem to increase unemployment among the native-born,
although it may reduce their pay." (Survey page 14.) This may be the first time
The Economist admits that migration may have any
adverse consequences for the native-born.
"…some of the children of Germany`s Turks, Britain`s
Pakistanis and France`s North Africans seem more
attracted to Fundamentalism than their parents are.
page 4.) This is the first time I have seen an
admission on the august pages of The Economist
that sometimes even the children of immigrants may have
difficulty integrating into the society of the host
"Newcomers without high-school education not only drag
down the wages of the poorest Americans…their children
are also disproportionately likely to fail at school."
(Survey, page 5.)
Germany … only 8% of Turkish children pass the Abitur,
the tough German high school-leaving exam, compared with
12% of the children of all foreigners and 30% of
Germans." (Survey, page 10.)
crime is linked to immigration," admits Claude Bertrand,
deputy mayor of Marseilles." (Survey, page 10.) This
is the first time I have seen The Economist
concede, albeit indirectly, that there could be any link
between crime and migration.
instance, what moral values and rules of behavior should
modern society insist that people share? (Survey page
What rules indeed? The
Economist makes plain what its concerns are when it
goes on to ask:
"In the name of protecting
freedom of speech and religion, should they tolerate
incitement to violence by Imams?"
So now our basic freedoms need to
be curtailed to keep migrants in line?
I do not want to leave you with
the incorrect impression. The writers of The
Economist`s Survey of Migration argue that migration
is both necessary and good. It just needs to be managed
better. They even make some suggestions that have merit.
But, for what may be the first
time, they are pointing out some of the dangers.
The analysis contained in The
Economist`s survey is still deeply flawed. But
that`s another, longer, letter!
Brimelow adds: I
am personally amused to see The Economist`s
subsection on the
economics of immigration, although itself
flawed, is headed “A Modest Contribution – On Balance,
Host Countries Benefit Only Slightly From Immigration,
Whereas Immigrants Benefit Hugely.” This is exactly the
point I made in the August Commentary Magazine,
responding to Tamar Jacoby`s long article in April. (The
cheapskates want you to
pay to download this exchange, but you can
read VDARE.COM`s dissection of her original article
huffed in response that
“I am, in any case, very
familiar with the National Research Council (NRC) study
Mr. Brimelow cites– and which, by the way, he
completely mischaracterizes. Far from positing "no
significant net economic benefit" from immigration, the
report calculates "a significant positive gain," perhaps
as large as $10 billion a year…”
Economist, which is at least numerate, rightly
dismisses this as “chickenfeed in an economy of $10
in other words, is being transformed for – nothing.
ungallantly, I continue to believe that Tamar had never
heard of the NRC study until I mentioned it.
all, she has all those Manhattan cocktail parties to
November 08, 2002