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
email.

A Reader Warns Of A Lame
Duck Stealth Amnesty

Steven Meyer writes from Melbourne, Australia.

See also:
The Economist
Magazine on Immigration
, by Peter Brimelow (March
11, 2000);
The Economist`s Review of Alien Nation

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:

"Race
and religion must be part of the discussion of
migration." (Leader
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.

"On
balance, host countries benefit only slightly from
immigration, whereas immigrants benefit hugely."
(Survey,

page 12.)

"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.
(Survey

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
country.


"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.)

"In
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.)

"Petty
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.

"For
instance, what moral values and rules of behavior should
modern society insist that people share? (Survey page
9.)

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!

Peter
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
here for
FREE.)

She
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…”

The
Economist, which is at least numerate, rightly
dismisses this as “chickenfeed in an economy of $10
trillion.”

America,
in other words, is being transformed for – nothing.

Perhaps
ungallantly, I continue to believe that Tamar had never
heard of the NRC study until I mentioned it.

After
all, she has all those Manhattan cocktail parties to
attend.

November 08, 2002