Author Challenges Immigration Myths
By Peter Worthington
The Toronto Sun
[See also
Hot Book Ignites
Fires Of Controversy, By Peter
Worthington,May 11, 1995]
April 27, 1995
Few things are as risky to
criticize these days as immigration policy—unless one is
willing to be branded "racist" for questioning or
seeking debate on its merits.
Yet that's exactly what Peter
Brimelow does in a new book that's shaking up America.
Alien Nation (Random House) is refreshingly
devoid of euphemisms and argues, contrary to mythology,
that immigration is not what made America great (albeit
unique). If there isn't a pause, Brimelow writes,
present policies will irrevocably alter and wreck
America.
Already the racial or ethnic mix of
America has changed—all stemming from the 1965
Immigration Act which opened the doors to Third World
immigrants. In 147 years prior to the 1965 Act, close to
90% of immigrants were Europeans; since 1965 some 16%
are Europeans (82% are Third World).
In 1988, for example, 13% of
immigrants to the U.S. came from the Caribbean, where 13
million people live, while 10% came from Europe with 650
million people. It isn't racist to acknowledge this has
wrought considerable changes—cultural, economic,
political, social. And what's true of America has
parallels in Canada. The same elements in both countries
tend to cry "racist!" at any hint of criticism.
Brimelow is an ethnic Brit who,
before going to the U.S. where he's a senior writer for
Forbes magazine, worked variously for Barron's,
the
Wall Street Journal, Maclean's, the Financial
Post. He also used to write a column for the Sun.
Brimelow is that rarest of creatures in journalism—an
independent, original thinker who isn't intimidated by
controversy.
A dispassionate look at the effects
of immigration is long overdue, but is virtually
taboo—rather like crime statistics in Canada as they
relate to countries of origin.
As one who has tended to favor open
immigration, I'm since persuaded that Brimelow is right
when he hammers the 1965 Act that stresses family
reunification—an unmitigated disaster. Allowing
unlimited numbers of unskilled relatives in who may be
illiterate and who head straight for welfare and then
bring in even more relatives of their own, is a
blueprint for abuse and problems.
It'd be better if only immediate
family members could be "reunified" instead of
"extended" families which can run to a dozen or more
persons per immigrant. Brimelow says immigrants who
crave family reunification can always return from whence
they came.
ILLEGALS FLOOD IN
Illegal immigrants are a
malignancy. Brimelow notes that some three million
illegals a year enter the U.S., and wind up comprising
25% of the federal prison population. California's
popular Proposition 187 that would deny illegals
taxpayer funding has growing support.
In the past, immigrants who didn't
make it in the New World returned home. Ernest Hillen,
author of the best-selling Way of a Boy
(about his
childhood in a Japanese prison camp) recalls going to
Holland in the mid-1950s on a ship filled with Dutch
immigrants who had failed and were going home. That no
longer happens. Once in North America, immigrants who
fail go on welfare. There's no weeding-out process.
The myth that "we're all
immigrants" is just that—a myth. So is the view that
immigrants add to our wealth. Technology and innovation
made America rich—but not as rich as Japan, which has no
immigration yet continues to grow.
Nearly 50% of Cambodian and Laotian
refugees are on welfare; two-thirds of the babies born
in Los Angeles county are to illegals—babies that are
automatically U.S. citizens.
Britain's leading newspaper, the
Telegraph, predicts Alien Nation "will provoke
even more outrage than last year's
The Bell Curve which postulated links between IQ
and race." Like The Bell Curve, Brimelow's
message is already being distorted and misinterpreted by
those liberals and conservatives who regard immigration
as sacred and beyond debate.
UNFASHIONABLE VIEW
Brimelow is simply identifying a
cause and effect—the logical consequences of a policy
dictated by politics, not economics. His is an
unfashionable view that can't be ignored.
Clearly, this is an important,
provocative book that is basically correct. To those who
say "so what?" if immigrants flood in and change
the ethnic make-up of America (or Canada), Brimelow
responds "so why?" Uncontrolled immigration has
made the plight of blacks worse in the U.S., and
contributed to intolerance in Canada. And there is no
end in sight.
America and Canada are being
changed, without the consent or even knowledge of their
citizens, from culturally homogeneous societies into
multicultural, multiracial multireligious societies—and
these invariably breed discrimination, prejudice,
conflict.
Thirty years ago
Enoch Powell was pilloried in Britain for
predicting racial problems from indiscriminate
immigration. Similarly, Brimelow will be attacked as an
unwanted prophet with an unwelcome message—especially
because he's probably right.