Alien Nation Review: New York, April 1995 - Weisberg
The National
Interest—Jacob Weisberg
Xenophobia
For Beginners
Peter
Brimelow’s ‘Alien Nation” may do for immigrant
bashing what Charles Murray’s “the Bell Curve”
did for racism—make it respectable.
(Inset
photograph: Jacket photo of Peter and young Alexander,
below it a photo of some Spanish-Americans waving U.S.
flags, probably at a Citizenship Swearing-in ceremony,
which may have been conducted in English. The caption
reads: Will
those nasty immigrants (below) come for Brimelow and
his son?)
Not
so long ago, the literature of egregious bigotry was
treated like pornography. You had to send for it by
mail—from backwoods presses that advertised in the
classified sections of conservative magazines—or
frequent the political equivalent of dirty bookstores.
Today, you just walk into any Barnes & Noble. The
Free Press set the precedent last fall with Charles
Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The
Bell Curve, which argued that blacks are
genetically less intelligent that whites. Now comes
Random House with Peter Brimelow’s Alien
Nation., another expression of intellectualized
white rage that attempts to do for immigrants, and
Hispanics in particular, what Murray did for blacks.
Odds are it will enrage sensible folk, convince no
one, and earn a small fortune.
Murray
and Herrnstein were enough cowed by the taboo they
were violating to bury their conclusions and couch
them in the obscure argot of social science. Brimelow,
a journalist at Forbes
and a British immigrant himself, doesn’t bother to
mumble. The browning of America, he contends, is
self-evidently a Bad Thing. To quote his peroration:
“Any change in the racial balance must obviously be
fraught with consequence for the survival and success
of the American nation. It is simply common sense that
Americans have an interest in their country’s racial
balance. It is common sense that they have a right to
insist that their government stop shifting it. Indeed,
it seems to me that they have a right to insist that
it be shifted back.”
Wow.
Brimelow tries to inoculate himself by complaining in
advance that about people who will seize on this
rhetoric to call him racist. It is
regrettable to end conversations with
name-calling. But what is racism if not an unreasoned
objection to living alongside people who aren’t the
same race? And an unreasoned objection his is. Instead
of offering arguments, Brimelow simply appeals to
“common sense” (he fancies himself a latter-day
Tom Paine) and postures about the sort of country his
very white 3 year-old son, portrayed on his father’s
knee on the back cover, will inherit.
But
forget for a moment the book’s in-your-face
vileness, and consider its evidence. To demonstrate
that we’re experiencing a catastrophic deluge,
Brimelow resorts to statistical abuses that would make
a high-school debater blush. His first distortion is a
chart that shows immigration in absolute numbers. By
including those who applied for legal status under the
temporary amnesty of a few years ago, he succeeds in
producing a recent “spike.” But what matters is
the number of newcomers relative to population. And
that figure is quite low, something like one fifth of
what it was between 1900 and 1910. Even in absolute
terms, the numbers are pretty unimpressive. In the
early years of the century, when population was around
75 million, legal immigration exceeded a million per
annum; the population is now 260 million, and
immigration runs in the 800,000 range, including
refugees. Desperate for some way to make the situation
look terrifying, Brimelow points out that those born
elsewhere now amount to 37 per cent of population
growth. But this hardly testifies to a mass influx,
since population growth overall has tapered off. A
more meaningful statistic is the percentage of our
population that is foreign-born. At less than 7
percent, that number is , once again, much lower than
at many points in American history.
Though
Brimelow seems truly alarmed by off -whiteness of all
shades, it is Latinos in particular that drive him up
a tree. About this "strange anti-nation inside
the U.S.," as he calls them, Brimelow resurrects
all the timeworn canards about immigrants: They're
criminal, they bring diseases, they reject our
culture, they refuse to learn English and assimilate,
they take our jobs, they drain our resources, and on
and so forth. He might at least have made an effort to
explain why the dire forecasts didn't prove true
before, but will now. Instead he defends the "nativist"
tradition. Among his self-described heroes are the
Know Nothings, who he argues were not unreasonable in
objecting to the arrival of Irish Catholics fleeing
the potato famine.
One
could painstakingly try to refute all of the current
arguments against immigration, but most of them can't
be found here. Alien
Nation, which grew out of an article in National
Review,( a magazine edited by John O' Sullivan,
another anti-immigrant immigrant Brit), is remarkable
for its intellectual shoddiness. Sources cited in its
footnote include the least savory of anti-immigrant
propaganda, and things like dust-jacket excerpts.
Brimelow makes his own points in ludicrous sound
bites. After noting an estimate that immigrants
generate an economic surplus of only $6 billion to $18
billion (an estimate disputed by the vast majority of
serious economists), he continues:" If
immigration is indeed causing a net loss to the tax
payers of $16 billion ... that means its economic
effects re neutral. It's a wash!!! America is being
transformed for—nothing?
Yep. That's what it looks like." Well, nope,
it doesn't (or nope,
it doesn't!!!, as Brimelow would say).
When
challenged at a recent Manhattan Institute lunch,
Brimelow repeated a defense he makes ad nauseum
throughout his book: He doesn't need to prove his case
, because the burden of proof rests on those who
support immigration. It is they who need to
demonstrate the benefits of changing America, not he
who needs to defend keeping it the same. This is where
Brimelow shows just how flawed his understanding of
America really is. "The same" is
immigration. Immigration, writes the historian Madwyn
Allen Jones, another, more enlightened Britisher, is
"America's historical raison d'être, the most
persistent and most pervasive influence on her
development." In fact, throughout American
history, immigration has been restricted only
intermittently.
Brimelow
asserts that thanks to immigration, the United States
is on the verge of turning into a cauldron of ethnic
conflict on the order of Lebanon or Yugoslavia. Why?
because, he blithely says, multicultural societies
don't work. But America isn't a multicultural society.
It's a melting pot with a tiny minority of radical
separatists. The children of immigrants continue to
learn English and assimilate despite the excesses of
bilingual education, just as they always have. I am
not surprised that Brimelow fails to understand this,
but I am amazed that Random House publisher Harry
Evans,(yet another
anti-immigrant English immigrant) has gone out of
his way to give these half baked musings his personal
endorsement.
None
of this is to say that there aren't problems with the
current system. Illegal immigration is an obvious one.
The bias of the 1965 reform act, which skews immigrant
pool by giving heavy weight to distant family ties, is
another. The result has been to favor a few ethnic
groups, the largest of which are unskilled and poorly
educated Mexicans, and to crowd out many nationalities
whose members can't enter because they don't have
relatives here. Immigration is also unfair to states
like California and Florida, which disproportionately
attract newcomers. This is because the economic
benefits of immigration flow to the federal
government, while most of the costs accrue locally. In
New York City, where the foreign-born population
exceeds twenty percent, tax revenues generated by
immigrants do not cover the cost of increased school
enrollment, for instance. But all of the problems
could be solved with a sound reform bill. We need to
caulk the cracks along the border, downgrade the
preference for non-immediate family, and come up with
federal help for immigrant-swamped regions. It's not
that complicated.
And
there's one xenophobic restriction I would
support: an indefinite moratorium on right-wing
Brits coming to tell us about threats to American
values. As Archie Bunker would say, if you don't like
it here, you can go back where you came from.