[This article appeared under the title “The World Population Explosion and the Cost of Uncontrolled Immigration” in the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Winter 1994, pp. 481-510; and also under the title “Uncontrolled Immigration’s Threat to American Identity” in The St. Croix Review, June 1995.  The title given here is the one given to it originally by Murphey himself, and is the one he prefers.] 

 

The On-Going Forfeiture of the United States' Cultural

and National Existence: A Look at The Immigration Invasion

Dwight D. Murphey

Wichita State University


            It would hardly seem too much to say that the cultural and even the political existence of the United States as we have known it is now seriously in jeopardy.

            If there were the mere fact that the attacks on mainstream American culture have become both increasingly common and embittered, that in itself would not be especially remarkable; "bourgeois culture," after all, has been under attack in the United States since at least 1820. The "alienation of the intellectual" against precisely that culture has been one of the major factors in American history, and the search by the intelligentsia for a long series of allies against the mainstream has called into play the various ideological twists and turns of the Left and has profoundly affected the politics of the country.

            What is remarkable is that in recent years the mainstream of the society has been willing, through an unprecedented forfeiture, to allow a vast demographic change to occur that arms the alienation with ever-increasing "muscle." If that change continues, the apostles of division (consisting of many of those marching under the banner of "diversity") are likely to become ever more strident--and will be backed up, far more than they are even today, by political lobbies, masses of voters, and a ubiquitous cultural-intellectual presence. The change I am referring to is the demographic one resulting from accelerating immigration, both legal and illegal, mostly from the Third World, and the higher birth rate among the immigrants. At some time, a "tipping point" will be reached, beyond which the demographic balance will have swung so far that the "mainstream" will no longer be in a position to know its own mind or assert its own will. This will occur long before the present mainstream loses its majority status. It isn't certain just when the political-ideological tipping point will be reached, but a serious argument can be made that the United States has gone beyond that point already.

            The usual reaction by white middle class Americans to such crises as they affect their individual lives has been simply to take advantage of the mobility that a free society makes possible: they have engaged in all sorts of "white flight," first from the central cities to the suburbs and then out into exurbia. They now even flee from an entire state such as California, doing so as a new type of affluent refugee to Oregon and Colorado and even Kansas. This flight is understandable on the part of each individual family, but it has lessened the desire to "stand and fight" and is one of the factors that accounts for the peculiar political impotence of the American middle class during the years when angry "minorities" have stood bestride the American landscape.

            There are many signs, however, that the average American is awakening to the immigration issue. Most conspicuous, of course, is the fact that for several years polls have shown an increasing opposition to the influx. Another sign is the June 1994 publication -- in a first printing of 200,000 copies! -- of The Immigration Invasion by Wayne Lutton and John Tanton. (The publisher is The Social Contract Press, 316 1/2 East Mitchell Street, Petoskey, Michigan 49770; a hardcover edition is available under the name The Costs of Immigration.) The Foreword is written by former Senator Eugene McCarthy, and this by itself attests to the breadth of the emerging consensus. Those who for other reasons are known as "cultural conservatives" are not alone in voicing concern.

            It is true that the Lutton-Tanton book is one among many that have sought to catch the public's eye. For reasons that will become apparent, this author has been especially impressed with Lawrence Auster's The Path to National Suicide, published by the American Immigration Control Foundation in 1990. But Lutton and Tanton have assembled, in a brief and easily readable book, so compelling a compilation of facts about the recent tidal wave of immigration that this article will mostly be a review of that book, adding such additional facts and observations as we think important. Wayne Lutton has his doctorate in history from Southern Illinois University and is a prolific author on the immigration issue. John H. Tanton, a physician, mixes eye surgery with a long-standing concern for the environment. He was the national president of Zero Population Growth between 1975-77.

            In the course of our discussion, we will proceed in somewhat a different order than their own. They start with the consequences flowing from the immigration in such areas as health and welfare costs, labor market impact, the politics of race, crime, and quality of life, probably because they want to make clear quite early why the subject is of vital interest to their readers. It is only then that they recount the facts about the extent of the immigration itself. In the present article, it will be important to explore the extent of the immigration first, doing so as part of placing the phenomenon in a worldwide perspective. The Third World influx offers to swamp out not just the United States but Europe as well. The challenge to the United States must be seen in the context of a massively swelling world population and of demographic shifts that place the continued existence of both European and American civilization, in anything like the form we have known them, in doubt.

            Our change in the order of discussion will also reflect our sense that the "tangible consequences" of the immigration, such as are set out so fully in the Lutton and Tanton book, even though they are highly significant, are not as important as the intangible consequences. Even if the immigration had no adverse effects in such areas as health and welfare costs, it would be a fact of the utmost historical importance if Europe and the United States were to lose their cultural identity. Such vital "intangible" issues will occupy at least the initial part of our discussion.

Two Matters That Must be Seen in Perspective

World Population Growth and the Swamping of Europe

            Writing in Conservative Review, James K. Patterson has said that "for thousands of years the world's population was between 100 and 300 million...By 1945, the world population of human beings had grown to 2 billion; by 1975 it had risen to nearly 4 billion and today [1991] it is moving on towards 5 and a half billion, with nearly 100 million being added annually."1 Palmer Stacy cites a projection that "world population...is expected to reach 8.5 billion in the next 31 years," to which he adds that "most of this increase is in poor Third World countries."2 To have some sense of the immensity of these figures, it is worth keeping in mind that a billion is one thousand million.

            So vast an increase in world population arises out of, and is dependent upon, modern technology, agriculture, medicine, sanitation, market freedoms, and trade. Humanity has, so to speak, "climbed out on a limb" by so greatly increasing its numbers; any failure to maintain the high level of civilization that exists in the more developed countries can lead to catastrophes throughout the world that will far exceed any horrors witnessed so far in human history.

            The impact on conditions within individual countries is incalculable. Patterson says that "in Kenya, the average woman produces eight living children, so that country doubles its population every seventeen years. With statistics such as these, no 'developing country' can hope to save itself, let alone develop."3 Stacy tells us that Mexico increased "from 34 million in 1960 to 72 million in 1980."4

            We know, of course, that in the aftermath of World Wars I and II, which have been aptly described together as at least in major part a great European civil war, the nations of Europe suffered severe debilitation and withdrew from their colonial empires, which prior to the mid-twentieth century extended European influence into much of what is today called the Third World. What is perhaps equally significant is that since the end of World War II European civilization, including its United States extension, has been under heavy ideological and moral siege. As the voices of brown- and black-skinned peoples have been amplified the world over, everything "Eurocentric" has come under attack as inherently repressive. Subject, of course, to notable exceptions, the professional and academic elites in Europe and America (who in any case have been under the influence of the cultural alienation of the Left) have been anxious to add their voices to this siege, projecting a mentality of apology and moral dejection. In the United States, for example, a great many educated Americans are more than ready--even anxious--to believe that earlier Americans acted immorally in "taking the continent from the Indians" and that the Roosevelt administration "interned" the Japanese-Americans during World War II.5

            This moral attack on Europe and America has had many dimensions, but an example that is especially illustrative and significant is the massive, on-going publicity that is given to the Holocaust. Whatever the merits of the debate that is now going on about the Holocaust, it is indisputable that the Holocaust story is made the basis for "laying a guilt trip" onto all of Europe and America. Not only are the German people assigned a generalized guilt for it, but England, the United States, the French people, the Catholic Church, and others are said to be guilty, too. Why? Because despite the fact that the Allies undertook great sacrifices to prosecute the war, it is said that they were "indifferent to the plight of the Jews." That the Holocaust is used as propaganda is evident from its innumerable reiterations and from the fact that it presents a peculiarly selective view of twentieth century history that ignores the horrors under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others. The Holocaust story has been endowed with a religious fervor that has a decidedly anti-European content.

            It is upon this demoralized context that the vast population pressures from the Third World have come to bear. Even if Europe and America's morale and will-to-exist were at their highest, the vastly exploding world population would exert enormous pressure to overflow its national and continental boundaries, and to run like a stream into all available spaces, especially into places that offer the affluence and high quality of life that Europe and the United States enjoy. But this stream confronts no obstacles, no sea walls, when Europe and America have so little moral energy. It would hardly come to the minds of their elites to think in terms of having civilizational prerogatives to preserve, much less about how to mobilize a defense against the demographic washing-away that is occurring. Their own lack of morale and moral stamina threatens to make any response "far too little and too late."

            Germany, a country of some 80 million people, had by June of 1993 taken in 1.8 million Turks, and "more Bosnian refugees than all other nations combined." The first four months of 1993 saw an influx of 167,000 additional immigrants.6 The political editor of the conservative Das Ostpreussenblatt in Hamburg, Joachim F. Weber, wrote in November 1993 that "the foreign population of West Germany before reunification with East Germany was about five million. In the past three years about two million have been added...Four-fifths of the foreigners come from various poor countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe."7 Under German law, a simple uttering of the word "asylum" has entitled them to enter. A September 1992 dispatch by the New York Times News Service reported that any change in the pro-immigration Constitution of 1949 can only be accomplished by a two-thirds vote of the Bundestag; this made approval by the Social Democrats necessary for passage, but for many years they were unwilling to give it.8 It was only in May 1993, after a great deal of bitter and often violent social friction, that the Bundestag restricted the asylum laws.9 Weber explains that the "real establishment" in contemporary Germany is composed of the erstwhile revolutionaries of the "generation of 1968," which welcomes a social revolution in the form of a move into multiculturalism.

            Great Britain's influx prompted Winston Churchill's grandson in mid-1993 to cry out against the "relentless flow of immigrants." Patrick Buchanan quotes him as saying that "if our prime minister believes that fifty years hence 'spinsters will still be cycling to Communion on Sunday morning,' he had best think again. Rather, 'the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Street mosque.'"10 Islam is already conspicuously present.

            France has undergone a similar invasion, foretold by what Jeffrey Hart has called a "nightmare vision" in Jean Raspail's futuristic novel The Camp of the Saints.11 Buchanan says that "Churchill's remarks came just days before France's interior minister called for 'zero immigration'...."

Demographics as the Basis for Liberal Politics and Ideology in the United States Since World War II

            The intellectual culture that served as the cornerstone of "liberalism" in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century was committed, in phases, to one form or another of socialism and was at all times profoundly alienated against what it saw as the "bourgeois" mainstream of American life.

            Although from a conservative's point of view this "liberalism" brought about vast changes in the society, especially in the Constitutional allocation of power, the liberal intellectual culture, in its own in-house literature as distinct from the image portrayed through the media, was at virtually all times in a mood of despondency. The changes weren't coming rapidly enough for it, and it could see ahead to no assurance that the United States would allow itself to be transformed into a socialist society. I have traced all of this in my book Liberalism in Contemporary America, which is based on an in-depth reading of the New Republic, the Nation, and other liberal writings during that period and the decades following World War II.12

            This intellectual liberalism was not itself the prime mover behind the black Civil Rights Movement that followed World War II, but seemed merely to follow meekly into it. It wasn't long, though, before the intellectual culture came to sense that the irresistible moral appeal of racial equality and the political-ideological alliances this made possible offered a powerful vehicle for liberalism itself, giving it a new program and sense of direction. At first this liberalism was centered around the Civil Rights Movement, but it is significant that by the 1970s and 1980s the egalitarian thrust came to embrace the newly burgeoned feminist movement and a multiculturalism that championed a variety of "minorities." Blacks came no longer to be the centerpiece of liberal ideology and politics, but to share the stage with others.

            Consistently with the amazing adaptability of the American Left, the theoretical basis for the egalitarian thrust also changed, not once, but in phases. At first, it took one of the fundamental principles of Western law, equality before the law, as its premise, and was able to use this successfully against the racial separation that existed in the United States. By a considerable leap, it went next to advocating a system of compensatory preferences, justified on the ground that preferences were needed to undo the effects of prior discrimination. Then by another leap, the preferences were extended into a vast system that encompasses not just blacks but women and immigrant minorities that have no history of prior discrimination to be compensated for. Beyond that, there is now a championing of the right of non-Americans from all continents to come and share at the egalitarian table. We call these things "leaps," but the transition has occurred by imperceptible degrees as the egalitarian moral claims have swept everything before them.

            Little of this would have taken hold, however, if it had not been for the intellectual, moral vacuum that existed within the predominant culture and that caused a general acquiescence in it. Many conservatives have opposed it, but their voices have been cries in the wilderness. Even the election of a succession of Republican presidents has done little to stimulate an intellectual and moral, and then political, response. The expression "the silent majority" captures the essence of one of the main facts about American society since World War II. Examples abound and relate to a variety of areas: eighty percent, say, of the voters in Kansas can for several years favor the death penalty, only to see their preference overridden by officeholders who march to a different drummer; and, what is most pertinent to the subject of this article, a strong majority of Americans can for several years favor tightening immigration, while the political elite that has most influence with both parties chooses to do just the opposite. There is much lip-service to "democracy" in the United States, but it is clearly not the mainstream of Americans that controls the country's political and ideological direction.

            The ineffectual role of the American mainstream is the result of a number of factors. Perhaps the foremost of these is that a society of "acting men" (which is what a commercial, "bourgeois" society is) needs an intellectual culture appropriate to itself: one that criticizes and elevates, but that is essentially loyal. This is precisely something that bourgeois societies have historically lacked, and it is a fatal weakness. It leads directly to inarticulateness, failure to take the moral initiative, apologetics, and to the type of obsequious fawning after "political correctness" that so many "educated" and "sophisticated" Americans have shown toward the ideas of the media and of the alienated intellectual culture throughout much of the twentieth century.

The United States: the Immigration Invasion, Now and as Projected

The Numbers

            In September 1994, an Associated Press story about a report prepared by the Population Reference Bureau said that "there were about 880,000 legal immigrants to the United States last year, and as many as 2.5 million entered the country illegally." Of the illegal entrants, it said that many leave again but that "an estimated 300,000 stay permanently. "Nearly 3,000 immigrants arrive in the United States each day."13

            The total population of the United States is expanding rapidly. Border Watch reports that "as recently as 1988, the Census Bureau predicted that U.S. population (now 255 million) would rise to about 300 million by 2050 and then level off or decline. Now [in early 1993] it projects a population of 380 million in 2050 which will continue to rise." Reasons include not simply the number of immigrants, but their much higher birth rate.14

            Figures from the Census Bureau show a continuing increase in the percentage of the American population composed of minorities. It was 13.1% at the beginning of the century, and this had increased to only 14.9 percent by 1960. But by 1980, it was 20.2%; by 1992, 25.2%. The projection for the year 2050 is that 47.0% will be minority.15 The Population Reference Bureau report gave the following ethnic breakdown for the projected 2050 population: Hispanics 20% (from their present 10%); Asians 10% (from 3%); Blacks 14% (from 12%). "Non-Hispanic whites," the present majority, "will decline from 74 percent to 52 percent."16 All projections are, of course, based on certain assumptions. Lawrence Auster cites calculations by demographer Leon Bouvier which arrive at a 53.8% white non-Hispanic population in the United States in 2050, but then adds that a more realistic set of assumptions about immigration and birth rates leads Bouvier to a 48.9% figure.17

            Absolute numbers, as distinct from percentages, are startling. A Los Angeles Times/Washington Post Service article in early 1993 said that "an estimated 100,000 Asians are illegally entering the United States each year...."18 Columnist Cal Thomas says that "while the population of Port-au-Prince is 472,000, the Haitian population of New York City is estimated at 400,000.19 A Knight-Ridder News Service article in December 1993 reports that "the people least discussed in the immigration controversy are those who come in the front door, using student visas, visitor visas and work visas. When the visas run out, they just stay--about 300,000 a year." Approximately the same number come across the border illegally from Mexico.20

High-Impact Areas in the United States

            California. Writing in Chronicles, Wayne Lutton refers to Leon Bouvier's Fifty Million Californians? and says "California's population, now at 31 million, may surpass 50 million by 2020. Well before that happens, perhaps as soon as the year 2000, the state's non-Hispanic whites are expected to comprise less than half of the population."21 Stacy says that "California's population grew by 6.1 million during the 1980's, with almost 40% of the growth caused by immigration. In 1991-92, the state gained at least 303,000 immigrants while it experienced a net loss of 41,000 Americans who fled to other states."22 George M. Carmichael told us in 1990 that in California "while whites are still a majority among the older people, white children are now a minority in the public schools. Hispanics make up 31.4% of the children enrolled in the public school system, Asians and other immigrant minorities constitute 11%, and blacks 8.9%--totalling 51.3% non-white."23

            Florida. In the same Chronicles article, Lutton said that "according to the 1990 census, 76 percent of Floridians were 'Anglos,' 13 percent black, and 12 percent Hispanic. If current fertility, mortality, and migration patterns continue, the Anglo proportion will fall to 64 percent by 2020 and 57 percent by 2050. The proportion of blacks will increase from 16 percent in 2020 and 19 percent in 2050, while the proportion of Hispanics will likewise rise to 16 and 19 percent over those same periods."24 (These figures show Florida to retain a white non-Hispanic majority longer than other areas. This would seem to be due to the migration of large numbers of older whites to Florida for retirement.)

            Texas. Bouvier and Dudley Poston (who chairs Texas A&M's sociology department) have co-authored a book Thirty Million Texans? It is from this that Lutton derives the figures that "should current trends continue here, by 2005 non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority and by 2020 Latinos will surpass Anglos to become the state's largest ethnic group." He points out that in terms of educational attainments, in Texas "nearly 34 percent of African-Americans and 55.5 percent of Latinos [have] less than a high school education. A remarkable 38 percent of Latinos have less than a ninth grade education."25

Some Advantages, Many Damaging Effects

            A debate has raged between supporters and opponents of the influx about its economic effects, the supporters arguing that the immigrants, including those who have entered illegally, contribute beneficially to the economy, exhibiting a strong work ethic and doing jobs that Americans don't want to do. This debate reflects the research of reputable economists on both sides, but we cannot help but note that sometimes the economic argument by the supporters becomes ludicrous: in an article entitled "Assimilation Enriches America's Melting Pot" in Insight, John J. Miller, the associate director of the Manhattan's Institute's Center for the New American Community, asks "who could possibly find a lift in Washington if it weren't for African and Latin American taxi drivers?" -- apparently forgetting that there were taxicabs in Washington, D.C., long before that trade was taken over by immigrants.26

            There is no doubt that a significant portion of the immigration strengthens the United States in a number of ways. I have seen this in my law practice. Two brothers from Laos are amazing self-starters, inventing new computer-board technology; and a client from Jordan worked two jobs and lived with several other members of his family so that he could scrimp and save enough to make the down payment to buy a Dairy Queen franchise. To talk with him is to be deeply impressed with his energy, entrepreneurial spirit, family commitment, intelligence and work ethic.

            Along the same lines, the United States has long been the beneficiary of a "brain drain" of scientific and professional people from throughout the world. In the college of business in which I teach, several faculty members are from Iran, India and Asia. Wichita has a number of physicians from the Philippines. In this dimension, the immigration may have revitalizing effects similar to those experienced by Rome after the city-state conquered the whole of the Italian peninsula. This raises, of course, a serious policy and ethical concern. Ought the United States to be draining intelligence from nations that need it desperately? This has prompted Garrett Hardin to ask: "Are India and Sri Lanka so well supplied with medical care that they can afford to donate doctors to us?"27 Just a day before I am writing this, I talked with a splendid student, now a junior at the university at which I teach, about his plans. He is from New Delhi, and he intends to stay in the United States after he graduates, and bring over his two brothers. When I asked him whether the move of all three brothers to the United States wasn't a tragedy for his parents and sisters, he answered that they intend to move to the United States, too.

            When we review the points made by Lutton and Tanton in The Immigration Invasion, we will see a number of tangible disadvantages in such areas as crime, health and welfare costs, etc. Before we get to those, however, there are several "intangible" problems to discuss.

The Impending Loss of National, Cultural Identity

            Lawrence Auster refers to what in my mind is the most important question: "What is the impact of immigration on the whole society--on America as a civilization?" (his emphasis). He speaks of "the erosion--and ultimately the submergence--of every defining aspect of American civilization." He quotes a Latino author as celebrating the fact that "we're changing the language, the food, the music, the way of being. We're changing you into a Latin country." Auster says that "American national culture is being supplanted by Third World cultures. We are now experiencing the following phenomena in this country: a 25-foot-high statue of the Aztec god of human sacrifice is being erected in a public square in the Hispanic-majority city of San Jose, Calif.; Santeria, a cult that practices animal sacrifice, is now constitutionally protected under the First Amendment; huge festivals awash in pagan symbols celebrating 'West Indian Day' and 'Hispanic Day' regularly disrupt life in major cities...At the same time, traditional American symbols and images are being discarded because they don't 'represent' our new, non-Western population...The Alamo is reconceptualized as a Hispanic monument. The Pearl Harbor memorial is relativized so as not to offend Japanese-Americans."28

            Whether concern about national identity is good or bad is in part a question of objective fact, since advantageous and disadvantageous consequences of a change in the identity can be evaluated; but primarily it is a matter of love and loyalty. It will be the central concern for those who cherish America for what it has been; those who are alienated against the American mainstream will oppose any such loyalty; those whose background causes them to be indifferent may assign little importance to it. We should note, however, that most people have come to the United States because they have valued what America is. If that essence is destroyed, their dream, too, is gone.

            When we speak of an impending loss of national, as distinct from cultural, identity, we refer to the threat that is posed to the polity as such. The naive assumption that the United States is bound forever to remain a unified country is coming to have less and less foundation. A strong separatist movement has existed in Canada among the French-speaking population of Quebec; and since the collapse of the Soviet Union the world has witnessed a large number of ethnic separations, most notably in the old Yugoslavia, where carnage has taken the form of "ethnic cleansing." The booklet by the American Conservative Party entitled "Are We Losing America?" points out that some pressure groups "are lobbying for completely open borders and others are demanding a 'return' of the entire Southwestern United States to Mexico, or alternatively, the creation of a separate 'Chicano' nation to be known as 'Aztlan.'"29 Before such a separation, the United States will suffer much bitter ethnic strife. Yuji Aida, professor emeritus at the University of Kyoto in Japan, has no more than expressed a truism when he has said that "it is only a matter of time before U.S. minority groups espouse self-determination in some form. When that happens, the country may become ungovernable."30

            The issue of national identity -- the critical issue -- is among those choked by ideological smog. Love for, and loyalty to, a civilization that has been preeminently European and Caucasian is attacked as "racism." Accordingly, Carl Rowan, a black columnist, has been moved to write in the following vein: "Spewing forth some of the most unsubtle racial bigotry imaginable, [Patrick] Buchanan argued that 'there is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country, an English-speaking country.'"31

            This makes it vital that Americans become clear about what constitutes "racism." If it is vicious "racism" to be pro-Caucasian, but colorful and laudatory to wear a "black power" T-shirt or to applaud Hispanics' "appreciation of their heritage," the term ceases to have meaning, and we are left with a raw double-standard that is nothing other than an intimidating ploy. No one is being demanded to foreswear allegiance to his kind except Europeans, Euro-Americans and Caucasians; everyone else is encouraged to celebrate his ethnic, racial or national identity. For alienated ideologues to promulgate this is understandable; what is not fathomable is that so transparent a ruse is accepted, as in fact it is, by so many whites.

            With regard to the meaning of "racism," the American Immigration Control Foundation (AICF) recently said that "perhaps the best definition is an attitude of superiority and contempt of one racial group for another. This attitude usually shows itself in attempts of the 'superior' group to dominate and oppress its victims."32 Instead of defining racism as "loyalty to one's own kind," and thus branding as vicious an affinity that people are bound to feel at all times and places, their definition looks to how that loyalty is manifested. Something is racist if it manifests a hostile and oppressive posture toward other peoples. A famous line from Shakespeare is "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" The modern equivalent of this might well be "An idea! An idea! My civilization for an idea!" So long as a great many white Americans and Europeans accept the notion that loyalty to their own kind is racism, they are on their way to committing civilizational suicide. It is amazing how human beings are moved by ideas--and, perhaps even more significantly, by confusion regarding ideas.

            The activists for other peoples do not hesitate to use this Euro-American moral diffidence to their own advantage. Wendell Peart has written that "immigrant advocates who use the term racism do so to hide their own racial views and preferences. Often, this is done to advance their racial agendas." His article bore a perceptive title: "Uncontrolled Immigration is Racist."33

            Another ideological issue relating to national, cultural identity arises out of the vagaries of conservative and "classical liberal" thought. Auster shows clear insight when he points out that "pro-immigration conservatives believe that America is defined solely by universal ideas."34 To these conservatives or libertarians, free markets and limited government are central to what is best in our society--and are values that should work to good advantage everywhere, among all peoples. It is an easy step from this to the assumption that free societies have no particular civilizational prerequisites.

            Such thinkers are taking their cue from much classical and neo-classical economic thought. Richard Cobden of the Manchester School, for example, was for free trade and open borders. The aspiration was that such ideas would spread throughout the world, leading to a worldwide "liberal" (in the original sense of that much-abused word) civilization. Classical liberalism in the nineteenth century was emphatically cosmopolitan, having little apparent concern about race or nationality.

            I am myself a "classical liberal" -- or, rather, a "neo-classical liberal," since I have long thought that its splendid nineteenth century insights need in several ways to be refined and extended to provide a more complete philosophy of a free society. As such, I would venture that such men as Richard Cobden, John Bright, Adam Smith before them, David Ricardo, Frederic Bastiat and the like never envisioned a loss of European vitality. Their system of ideas presupposed, as a given about which they hardly found it necessary to speak, a certain civilizational order. In his diary, John Bright (along with Richard Cobden a leader of the Manchester School's campaign in 1820s England against the tariff on grains) showed how relevant he in fact considered the level of culture to be. After visiting Turkey, he wrote: "No inducement is held out to the people to march on the road to civilization. There exists no spirit of emulation amongst them, and they drag on their existence as nearly as possible in the same listless and apathetic manner in which their fathers have done before them."35

            Those of us who support free markets and limited government would do well to note this. It does not serve the ideal of a free society for us to cling with consistency to a few premises, however excellent, as though they define the full range of legitimate human concern; instead, those in the classical liberal tradition need above all to cultivate an understanding of the many prerequisites both of civilization and of a free society. I have sometimes thought in terms of an overall "systems theory" of a free society, but that gives a purely rationalistic impression that doesn't fully convey the need for appreciation of the rich texture, the seamless web, that must underlie it.

            While we are discussing the conceptual issues that relate to national identity, we will do well to consider an historical point about which there is some misunderstanding. Auster mentions that "as immigration advocates are fond of pointing out, fears that immigration would undermine America's national culture were raised in the early 20th century...." What he says next would seem to concede the point: "Since that threatened disaster did not occur, the advocates continue, similar warnings are utterly invalid now. This ahistorical argument ignores the profound and decisive differences between immigration at the turn of the century and today."36

            Americans value, as human beings, the people among us who have entered at any time, just as we will value those who come in by future immigration. We value each other as friends, neighbors, business associates, and in our other relations with each other. But in the search for an historically honest understanding this should not obscure the effects of earlier waves of immigration. The twentieth century has seen a vast swing away from the ideals and culture of earlier Americans, and that change has been a constant source of distress to those who have valued that earlier America. The ethnic and religious minorities that came in between 1880 and 1920 were important components of the "Roosevelt coalition" that supported the New Deal; they have for many decades provided bloc voting for liberal-Democratic candidates; and it was masses of immigrants in urban areas that provided the basis for the big-city "boss system" and "machines," another part of the Roosevelt coalition. These were effects of the massive immigration from southern and eastern Europe.

            Jews are fully a part of today's America, but this should not obscure the fact that the Jewish immigration from eastern Europe did much to foster socialist thought and radical activity, including that of the 1930s and 1960s. In his 1970 book Remembering the Answers: Essays on the American Student Revolt, Nathan Glaser (certainly no anti-Semite) observed that "the East European Jews...became, in the course of a great migration between 1880 and 1924, the dominant part of American Jewry." About them, he wrote that "Jewish radicalism is not new...If they came out of the Jewish ethnic culture, as so many did, then we must remember that a powerful strain in that culture, rivaling in its appeal and significance for Jews the Jewish religion itself, was Jewish socialism, in a score of variants."37

A Threat to Liberty and Equality

            Auster expresses an insight that many of us have not thought of. He says that "as diversity continues to expand beyond the point where genuine assimilation is possible, the ideal of equality will also recede...[This likely will lead to] a devolution of society into permanent class divisions based on ethnicity, a weakening of the sense of common citizenship, and a growing disparity between islands of private wealth and oceans of public squalor."38

            He speaks also of a threat to liberty. "The inequality, the absence of common norms and loyalties, and the social conflict stemming from increased diversity require a growing state apparatus to mediate the conflict. The disappearance of voluntary social harmony requires that harmony be imposed by force." Auster points to "the signs of this new despotism [that] are all around us: the de jure and de facto repression of speech dealing with racially sensitive subjects; the official classification and extension of privileges to people according to ethnic affiliation; the expansion of judicial and bureaucratic power to enforce racial quotas...; the subjection of the American people to an unceasing barrage of propaganda...."39 Samuel Francis, writing in the July 1990 Chronicles, voices the same concern: "When the common culture disintegrates under the impact of mass migrations, only institutionalized force can hold the regime together." Lutton adds to this the effects on liberty of a society's becoming crowded: "Had the American population stabilized at the 1950 mark of 150 million, today we would require no imported oil, pollution would be dramatically lower, and many other problems would be less intense...."40 Most of these problems bring about additional governmental intervention into our lives.

Health, Education and Welfare Costs

            If, now, we proceed to a review of the tangible (as distinct from the "intangible") disadvantages, not the least of these will be in the areas of health, education and welfare. Many of our references will be to the Lutton and Tanton book The Immigration Invasion, which for convenience we will refer to as TII.

            "The United States has become a 'welfare magnet' to people around the world," the authors say. "Benefits granted by federal, state, and local agencies are typically far higher than the annual income in many countries of origin."41

            How much the immigrants use our welfare system depends on whether they are from less-developed or more highly developed countries. Recent census figures, say, showed only 3.9% of immigrants from Switzerland to be on welfare, whereas 29.3% of those from Vietnam, and 12.4% of those from Mexico, were.42

            In  the past, the American "work ethic" has served as a check against accepting welfare, but TII says that some minorities see it as an entitlement and are even encouraged to take it. There is a three-year waiting period, but many older Chinese immigrants (55% of those who have entered California since 1980) go on welfare as soon as they become eligible.43 A press report in December 1993 said that the Congressional Budget Office has totalled federal public-assistance spending in four categories as being $21.3 billion in the next five years for legal and illegal immigrants. This encompasses four major categories: Food stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income. The report says that "other estimates of combined state and federal assistance for legal non-citizens [that is, not even counting those here illegally] range as high as $11 billion a year." It tells us that "undocumented immigrants" can't receive public assistance, but that their children can, if born here.44

            A sympathetic human interest story in the Wichita Eagle in mid-1993 bore the headline "Somalis struggle to start life in Wichita." It said that "only one member of the family...has a job, washing dishes at a Wichita hospital. The rest depend on welfare checks and donations...."45

            The argument is sometimes made that "legal immigrants contribute more through taxes than they consume in government services." Border Watch, however, says that the statistics cited for this are years out of date; in 1991, Dr. George Borjas, an economist at the University of California, reported that "the new immigrants," less skilled and educated, "are joining the welfare system at a much higher rate than the older immigrants."46

             Of the programs used by aliens, public education is "the largest expense category," TII says. This is partly because a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1982, Plyler v. Doe, held that public education must be provided to illegal aliens' children. In Los Angeles County alone in 1991 there were almost 100,000 such children, although not all yet of school age.47

            The Earned-Income Tax Credit, under which low-income tax-return filers actually receive a check from the federal government instead of paying taxes, was started under the Nixon Administration--and checks are even sent to illegal aliens, since the tax code makes no requirement of legal residence.48

            "Unreimbursed health care" costs are enormous for illegal aliens. TII cites figures from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services which show that these unreimbursed expenses -- for that county alone -- were $99.8 million in 1983-4 and went up every year thereafter until in 1988-89 they were $163.0 million.49

            The drain on the public treasury is accomplished, in many areas, with the active condonation of courts and local governments that reflect the new political realities. When Illinois tried to expunge illegal aliens from its welfare rolls, a federal court, in a lawsuit brought by an activist Hispanic organization, ordered the state to stop asking applicants where they were from. TII says that "throughout the 1980s, many states and municipalities declared themselves 'sanctuaries' for aliens and have openly refused to cooperate with the INS" [Immigration and Naturalization Service]. In May 1988, an announcement signed by Edward Koch as mayor of New York City told illegal aliens that "it is not the City's policy to report you to immigration authorities." In 1990, HUD secretary Jack Kemp held that public housing must not "discriminate" against illegal aliens.50

Bringing in Tuberculosis

            Neil Pierce in the Baltimore Sun writes that "tuberculosis is the world's largest cause of death from a single infectious agent," and warns about the disease-spreading effects of massive immigration.51 Even though the incidence of TB was reduced to historic lows in the United States just a little more than a decade ago, Border Watch reports that it is now reaching "epidemic levels" in several major U.S. cities. It quotes Newsweek to the effect that "immigrants from Southeast Asia and Latin America [have] brought the disease to the United States in increasing numbers."52

Labor Market Impact

            Julian Simon, a marketing professor at the University of Maryland, has testified that "immigrants do not take jobs, they create jobs...My recommendation would be that we simply jump immigration visas to one million per year."53 But TII points out that the overwhelming number of immigrants since 1965 have been low-skilled. "Less than 5 percent of legally admitted immigrants are certified by the Department of Labor as possessing job skills and educational attainments actually needed by the economy." Instead of their taking only jobs that Americans do not want to perform, "a 1989 study conducted by Dr. Huddle [economist Donald Huddle of Rice University]...estimated that two out of every three of the jobs currently held by illegal aliens could be filled by Americans." An insidious process occurs, according to Lutton and Tanton: "A major factor in the displacement of Americans is that many jobs are simply not available to them...All too frequently job openings are not advertised in newspapers or listed with state employment services. Instead, aliens recruit other aliens by word of mouth. Over time, the work places become 'colonized' by aliens...."54 The immigrants do often create new jobs, but most of these go to other immigrants, and entire lines of business become run almost exclusively by aliens. In New York City, "recent immigrants from the Indian subcontinent now operate about 40 percent of the city's gas stations...; over 85 percent of the green-grocer stores are owned and operated by Koreans; Indians and Pakistanis now enjoy a virtual monopoly on newsstands and are now moving into the jewelry trade."55

            Much the same in happening in the professions. "According to the National Science Foundation," TII says, "about 35 percent of all engineers now working in the U.S. are foreign-born. The hiring of aliens in skilled occupations is increasing. Employers often prefer to hire them because they will work for less than the American pay scale."56 In its newsletter, the American Engineering Association pointed out in 1992 that the 1990 Immigration Reform Act had tripled the legal immigration of scientists and engineers, with the result that "unemployment of American engineers has reach 'record highs' since 1990. In addition to working for less, the foreign engineers help the companies that hire them satisfy affirmative action requirements.57 The influx of foreign technicians and engineers has occurred at the very time that hundreds of thousands of Americans in those roles have lost their jobs because of cut-backs in the military and the defense industries.

            It is important for readers to understand the differences that exist in the perception of all this. Economics has for two hundred years prided itself on being a value-neutral science [although many economists of all persuasions have very definite economic and social preferences], simply analyzing the operation of markets in terms of what is most efficient. In those terms, it makes no difference whether American or Indian engineers are employed in the United States. Economics as a science is neutral as to nationality. And many employers have also seen the workforce this same way, being solely concerned about profitability. An example comes to mind about Pennsylvania in the early twentieth century: the steel mill owners in the town of Coatesville brought in so many blacks from the South and so many immigrants from eastern Europe that great strains were placed on the social fabric, laying the foundation for a brutal lynching by the townspeople after a black killed a security policeman.58

            In modern thought, there is a major tension between economic values, taken by themselves, and a good many other values cherished by given cultures. Economics as a science, so long as it remains value-neutral, can only point out the consequences of varied alternatives and cannot presume to determine the choice from among them. Inconsistently with this, many devotees of a free market believe that economic theory demands an exclusion of those other values. It does not. We do not abandon economics when we embrace one or more of those values; we simply acknowledge that economic "efficiency" is just one, albeit a very important, desideratum, even (or most especially) to a "free society."

            The influx into low-paid jobs, small business and the scientific professions has been replicated in American universities. Lutton and Tanton say that "many colleges and universities are staffing their departments of mathematics, business, and engineering with legal aliens. The practice is expanding to the liberal arts, propelled by 'affirmative action' requirements for the hiring of favored 'minorities.'...The Chronicles of Higher Education has run ads listing the services of the 'Minority Faculty Registry,' based at Southwestern University,...which offers to help candidates specially favored as minorities find employment at colleges and universities across the country." The authors go on to tell a startling statistic from the Christian Science Monitor: that "more than 50 percent of all faculty under the age of 36 in American universities today are foreign-born."59

The Political Impact

            In a democracy, the growth of a given population brings political power with it, both as an irresistible consequence and because the ethos of the society will not, in any case, allow otherwise. The shift of political power to "minorities" has occurred rapidly in the United States, and is continuing.

            Lutton and Tanton point to specific issues that have thusfar been affected by this (although we ought to be aware that before long all issues will come under its sway). One of these has to do with legislative apportionment: "The new statistical realities become the basis for apportioning seats in the federal and state legislatures." It is noteworthy that not just legal aliens, but illegal aliens as well, are counted for purposes of apportionment.60 The impact is at first felt most strongly at the level of state representative districts, but the new demographic realities will necessarily be felt as well at the Congressional level -- and in the Electoral College.

        Another political effect has been Congress' having "watered down the English requirement for citizenship." TII tells us that "today, persons over fifty who have lived here for twenty or more years are excused from the very elementary English language test required for naturalization...In late 1993, the INS even conducted an entire naturalization ceremony in Spanish!" Bilingual ballots are required, by a 1975 amendment to the Voting Rights Act, in voting districts that meet certain criteria. Interestingly, Spanish is the only European language that receives this treatment. "Los Angeles...now provides ballots in Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog (the language of the Philippines), Japanese, Spanish, in addition to English."61            

            One would think that, at the very least, the right to vote would be reserved to citizens. But even that is cracking under pressure. Tacoma Park, Maryland, recently approved a non-citizen voting right; and pressure is mounting to do the same in nearby Washington, D.C., the nation's capital and a major city.62

            Sixty-five pressure groups lobbied for the "Motor-Voter Bill" that was signed into law by President Clinton on May 20, 1993. This creates a system of easy voter registration. Among its other provisions, it "explicitly discourages attempts to verify a voter registrant's citizenship by providing that mail-in registration forms 'may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,'" according to TII.63

            Gerrymandering to create safe legislative seats for minority groups found its way into American law with a 1982 amendment to the Voting Rights Act. Lutton and Tanton point out that "this clearly gives the political leadership an incentive to keep the population together, ghettoized, unassimilated and isolated...."64                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Another political consequence has been the increasing pressure to admit Puerto Rico to the union as the 51st state. This would, in effect, make the United States a multilingual empire, and Lutton and Tanton rightly point out that demands could then be justified to translate Congressional debates into Spanish and publish all government documents not only in English but in other languages as well.65 The United States has passed the point at which this seems ludicrous.

            It is ironic that the growing political power of "minorities" is leading to a sense among blacks that they are, relatively speaking, losing power. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The political results of [Los Angeles'] changing demographics add to the African-Americans' sense of powerlessness. Once solidly African-American, South Los Angeles is now heavily Latino. African-Americans fear loss of political power when new City Council Districts are drawn to reflect the city's fast-growing Latino and Asian-American populations."66

            Not the least of the political consequences is the growing institutionalization of ethic divisions. "In 1968, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act, providing federal funding to school systems struggling to educate non-English-speaking children...as a bridge to English," TII points out. "However, a bilingual education establishment quickly grew up and wanted to retain students in their native language environment for much of their schooling. In addition, maintaining the students' culture now has become a goal of bilingual education."67 (In this, we see again that little remains what it starts out to be; the thinking progresses in phases as one thing leads to another.)

            Associated closely with this is the hue-and-cry in universities and the lower grades for "multicultural education." Proponents sometimes assert that multiculturalism is nothing other than a good liberal arts education, such as is produced by students' studying ancient history or French. But it is foolish to accept this, since it seeks to blind others to the ideological content of the multicultural movement. Lutton and Tanton describe multiculturalism accurately when they say that "multicultural education has become the code word for teaching history and social studies in a manner sure to develop in minority children a sense of estrangement from mainstream American society. Students are taught that their ancestors have been the victims of persecution and injustice in this country...This approach is rationalized as building self-esteem."68

Crime

            The relationship between the massive immigration and crime was dramatized recently by two high-profile incidents: the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, for which four illegal aliens from the Middle East were charged; and the shooting-to-death of two CIA agents outside the CIA headquarters in Virginia, for which an illegal immigrant from Pakistan (who has fled the United States) is the suspect.69 But although spectacular incidents help focus public attention, the more important reality is the immense subterranean growth of crime as augmented by a significant portion (though of course not a majority) of those those coming in.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   TII tells us that "the U.S. Bureau of Prisons reports that more than 25 percent of federal inmates are non-U.S. citizens." But even this large prison population doesn't tell the full story: Congressman Lamar Smith points out that "seven out of eight aliens [who commit crimes] are either released or given probation and never serve time in prison." Lutton and Tanton tell us that "over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges."70

            The problem is only in part one of individual criminals. TII explains how each ethnic group involves organized crime: "Colombians in cocaine; Mexicans in marijuana, alien smuggling, and auto theft; Nigerians in heroin, student-loan and credit-card fraud; Chinese in heroin and alien smuggling; South Koreans in prostitution; Russians in drugs and insurance-fraud; Jamaicans in cocaine." Centuries-old criminal organizations called "Triads" flourish among the Chinese; "the [California] Attorney General's Office reports that the Wo Hop To Triad, which is one of the most active Triads in California, has a combined membership of 28,000." These smuggle in 100,000 illegal Chinese immigrants annually, for which the immigrants are charged fees running as high as $50,000 apiece; and the Triads' "most important source of wealth derives from their control of the major supplies of heroin," an activity that centers in New York City. Japanese crime syndicates are called "the Yakuza." Lutton and Tanton also tell of Caribbean criminal organizations from Jamaica (which are the most heavily armed), Haiti and Cuba.71

            The media often picture aliens as model citizens, but this is contradicted by the country's growing awareness of street gangs. In Los Angeles alone, "gangs of almost every nationality flourish: Samoan, Filipino, Salvadoran, Mexican, Korean, Vietnamese. Experts estimate there are about 600 gangs." Non-Hispanic whites seldom organize into street gangs. In Denver, "60 percent of the gang members are black (although they are only 5 percent of the city's population) and 33 percent are Hispanics (who represent 12 percent of Denver's population."72            

            The impact of this in human terms is conveyed by a letter a police officer in Reno, Nevada, wrote to Border Watch in 1993. He said that "when I moved to this area Hispanics were rarely seen and had little contact with the police. During the past five years Reno has come to look more and more like a suburb of Mexico City. Almost half of the calls police respond to involve Hispanics...Also five years ago, we had no gang problems in Reno. Today we have identified a dozen or more immigrant gangs."73

            These problems will almost certainly become worse. On April 1, 1994, the INS was ordered by the Clinton Administration not to run routine fingerprint checks on immigrants. Doing so had been an effective screening device to prevent the entry of immigrants with criminal records (9,000, for example, in 1993).74

Environment and Quality of Life

            John Tanton has been active on environmental issues for several years, in 1975-7 serving as national president of Zero Population Growth. It is no wonder, then, that he and Lutton point out that environmental problems correlate with size of population. If, say, new technology makes possible an improvement in energy efficiency, the decrease in usage is negated if the number of people using energy increases. The same applies to all resources.75

            The quality of life is affected as population becomes more dense. Harmony can only be achieved by increasing the amount of regulation. (I remember that when I was a boy in Denver, people were able to burn their leaves in the fall and their trash in an "ash pit." Both had to be prohibited when Denver's growth made smog a problem.)

Recent Immigration Legislation

            Lutton and Tanton review the history of American immigration as far back at the seventeenth century, but we will be content to set out the legislation that has been instrumental in producing the massive influx of the past 35 years.

1965 Immigration Act

            The 1965 Act, signed by President Lyndon Johnson, eliminated the "national origins" principle that had been a part of American law since 1924 and had favored Europeans. The effect was that "85 percent of the 11.8 million legal immigrants arriving in the U.S. between 1971 and 1990 were from the Third World...." Twenty percent were from Mexico. Once they were here, immigrants could bring in their relatives, who could then bring in theirs in an unending chain.76

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act

            President Carter appointed a commission to look into the immigration issue, and it recommended increased controls. But the 1986 legislation had two sides: one was restrictive, but only in appearance, while the other granted amnesty to 3.1 million illegal aliens. After 18 months of temporary residency and five years as a permanent resident, those who were amnestied became eligible for citizenship -- and could bring in their relatives. The amnesty, which of course encourages future illegal immigration by those who anticipate future amnesties, was supposed to be offset by the restrictive side. This consisted of beefing up the Border Patrol and imposing "employer sanctions" on anyone hiring illegal aliens. These became dead letters when Congress failed to appropriate money to pay for the strengthening of the Border Patrol and when the INS wasn't given sufficient funds to enforce employer sanctions. A second reason the sanctions haven't worked is that employers have been given no effective means to verify the legal status of an applicant for employment. Forged documents and work records are rampant.77

            Since World War II, anti-discrimination laws of one kind or another have freely overridden the "freedom of association" that had until then been an important American Constitutional principle. As one additional extension of these laws, the 1986 Act made it illegal for an American to hire a U.S. citizen in preference to an alien.78

1990 Immigration Act

            Despite polls showing a strong majority of the public opposed to lax immigration, President George Bush signed the 1990 Act, which raised legal immigration by almost 40 percent. The increase was stimulated by claims of an impending "labor shortage."79

            The Act also allowed half a million Salvadorans to stay in the United States as a "safe haven." This was to expire in mid-1992, then was extended one year. None had been sent home by the time TII was written.80

Claims of Asylum; Simply Fading Away; Fraudulent Marriages; "Anchor Babies"

            In the course of all this, the United States has adopted a principle that if an incoming immigrant says "political asylum," he will be allowed into the country "on parole" pending an INS hearing on his eligibility. The lag between entry and hearing is 14 months, and two-thirds of the entrants never appear for the hearing, simply melting into the country.81 One ground for asylum, by itself, has the potential of allowing tens of millions of Chinese into the country: the Los Angeles Times/Washington Post Service on June 7, 1993, reported that asylum is usually granted to Chinese couples who object to China's policy of sterilizing those who have had one child.

            Oddly, as Lutton and Tanton point out, millions of people simply enter the country through our airports and stay--with no basis at all, and without even being counted in the statistics as illegal aliens.82 This is a fact of unfathomable proportions. And, since anyone marrying an American citizen becomes entitled to permanent resident status in two years, many aliens marry Americans and then get a divorce as soon as the two years are up. Organizations exist that arrange these phony marriages.83

            The U. S. Supreme Court has held the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that anyone born in the United States is automatically an American citizen. This lends itself to enormous abuse, since even babies born to illegal aliens are instant citizens. When the children reach 18, they are entitled under current law to bring in their relatives. This causes them to be called "anchor babies." Almost all other countries look to the legal status of the parents in determining whether a baby becomes a citizen.84

The Clinton Administration

            The Clinton Administration has continued to act contrary to majority American opinion as shown in the polls. President Clinton has pushed for the admission of aliens who are HIV-infected.85 A news report on November 26, 1993, said that "the Clinton administration says it will actively encourage legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens...The effort could enfranchise millions of people who have lived in this country for years without seeking citizenship...The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that 10 million [are eligible]."86 And hundreds of Iraqi POWs taken captive in the 1991 Gulf War have been admitted as "refugees," a process that began under the Bush administration."87

Supporters and Opponents of Open Immigration

Supporters

            Stacy lists some of the groups that lobbied for the 1990 increase in legal immigration: National Council of La Raza, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Organization of Chinese Americans, Japanese American Citizen League, Irish Immigration Reform Movement, American Civil Liberties Union, American Jewish Committee, U.S. Catholic Conference, American Immigration Lawyers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers.88 A group that coordinates such efforts is the National Immigration Forum.89 The May 1992 issue of Border Watch listed the names and addresses of 22 major American corporations that had contributed to the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC); 17 that contributed to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); and 19 that helped support the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). The companies include such giants as Ford, Mobil, AT&T, Chevron, General Motors, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola.

            Even certain major conservatives have taken a liberal view of the immigration. The Wall Street Journal has endorsed a Constitutional amendment declaring "there shall be open borders."90 Stacy observes that certain "neo-conservatives" such as Irving Kristol, Nathan Glaser and Midge Decter have argued strongly against "multiculturalism" but have, inconsistently in his (and my) opinion, just as strongly favored open immigration.91 Major conservatives, he reminds us, voted for the 1986 amnesty; these included Jack Kemp, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dornan, Robert Michel, John McCain and Vin Weber.92 The Heritage Foundation has sponsored an Hispanic Heritage month and has published position papers that advance immigration.93 This amounts, in effect, to a crisis within "conservatism," since a continuation of the influx will potentially frustrate virtually everything conservatives of all types have worked for for many years.

Opponents

            Any listing of the opponents of relaxed immigration runs the risk to failing to mention a good many who deserve recognition. Suffice it to say that the American Immigration Control Foundation (P.O. Box 525, Monterey, VA 24465) publishes the monthly newsletter Border Watch, to which we have referred frequently here; and that the "Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)" is described as "one of the most fiercely vocal anti-immigration groups."94 Chronicles magazine has written splendidly on the subject. And, of course, the Social Contract Press, with its wide dissemination of The Immigration Invasion, is doing much to enlarge and to deepen the public's awareness.

            The issue is cutting across traditional party and ideological lines, as witness the Foreword to TII written by former Senator Eugene McCarthy. Samuel Francis has reported that "the 1990 Roper poll...found [that] 74 percent of Hispanic-Americans and 78 percent of black Americans don't want more immigration. Ninety-one percent of all Americans wanted illegal immigration halted."95 That the minorities themselves do not want additional immigration will no doubt be a fact of major significance to groups attempting to mobilize a political movement to stop the influx.

Suggested Solutions

            If the American people develop the requisite understanding and will, and if they move themselves to develop political means to see their wishes realized in policy, -- and these are big "ifs"! -- there are a great many things that can be done. Here are some of the suggestions that appear in the literature:

. To deny major governmental services to illegal aliens. This was the thrust of California Proposition 187 on the November 1994 ballot.

.Transport illegal entrants, when caught, back to the interior of their own country, rather than simply to place them across the border, from which they make repeated (and ultimately successful) attempts to re-enter.

.Use troops to guard the Mexican-American border until the Border Patrol can be very substantially increased in size and properly trained. Mexico, by the way, uses troops to bar illegal immigration across its own southern border.

.Impose small fines on illegal aliens who are carrying cash.

.Confiscate the money and property of those smuggling aliens into the country, just as the United States does with drug smugglers. This should especially be done with the ships that Chinese smugglers use to bring in tens of thousands of Chinese every year. [The lack of due process, up to now, in such seizures of property will need to be remedied before this can be advisable. A serious assault on property rights has emerged as hundreds of new laws provide for property seizure.]

.Enact legislation, or a Constitutional amendment if needed, to change the rule that any baby born in the United States, even to an illegal alien, is automatically a citizen. One suggestion is to make citizenship depend on the legal status of the baby's mother.

.Exert diplomatic and perhaps economic pressure to secure the cooperation of foreign governments to stop the flow. Governor Wilson of California sought the help of the Mexican government, but was rebuffed.96 The rebuff ought not to be the end of the story.

.Build secure fences along key crossing points between the United States and Mexico, and use high-tech imaging devices and detection systems. While this idea is often ridiculed, Hong Kong has had good results in fencing its border.97 Fencing shouldn't be allowed to become a "Maginot Line" type of illusion; but if it is used as just one of several responses, it can make a valuable contribution.

.Enforce employer sanctions against the hiring of illegal immigrants. This means increasing the manpower of the INS and introducing a means by which employers can check the legal status of applicants for employment. Two ways that have been suggested to accomplish the latter are to develop a tamper-proof form of identification card, and to have a call-in system (such has become well-nigh universal for merchants honoring credit cards) to determine status. The objection is made that either the card or the call-in system would be damaging to personal freedom in the United States. This can hardly be doubted, but the fault lies not with efforts to stop the influx; the damage to a free society comes from the invasion itself and the means it makes necessary to overcome it.

.Crack down hard on the production and sale of forged work records and immigration documents.

.To accommodate the need for migrant workers in agriculture and elsewhere, it has been suggested that a short-term "guest laborer" status should be created which would be carefully monitored and which would not involve the migrants' bringing in of their families.98

.Impose a modest border-crossing fee to provide funds for expanding the Border Patrol.

.Greatly restrict the right to claim "political asylum," since potentially hundreds of millions of people in other countries will at some time or other be able to claim persecution. And stop letting the entrant "out on parole" pending a hearing, since this makes possible the person's melting into the population. Hearings in the relatively few cases that will be allowed should be held promptly. Lutton and Tanton recommend that for asylees and refugees "the emphasis should be on temporary succor with eventual repatriation" (their emphasis).99

.Stop allowing people to transfer money to foreign banks without proof that the transferor is in the United States legally.

.It is sometimes suggested that the "real solution" is to improve other countries so that their citizens don't want to leave them.100 No doubt this is logically appealing, but for the United States to attempt to oversee the well-being of billions of people in other parts of the world would be quixotic in the extreme.

.Lutton and Tanton want an immediate moratorium on all but a small amount of immigration until a satisfactory long-term policy can be debated and written into law. They say that, "first and foremost, Congress must decide on the purposes of immigration."101

.A way needs to be devised to prevent aliens from over-staying their visas needs. TII suggests a bond-posting requirement, or that aliens be required to purchase non-refundable round-trip airline tickets.102

.Local authorities should not be permitted to make their localities sanctuaries for illegal aliens. The widespread flouting of federal law by such governments is the only major violation of the Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" (which declares federal law paramount over state and local law where they conflict) that this author has even heard of being allowed.

.The "chain-reaction" of immigrants bringing in their relatives must be curtailed. Lutton and Tanton suggest allowing in only the nuclear family itself.103

.Provide no "affirmative action" preferences for immigrants.104

.Require a knowledge of English as a requisite for citizenship.105

.Put an end to bilingual programs in schools and in public services.106

.Grant no more amnesties.107

.Stop the emphasis on "multiculturalism" which has swept the "politically correct" movement, from university presidents on down. Return to an emphasis on a common culture, with emphatically European roots. This one measure by itself will require massive effort, since at present the push for multiculturalism is proceeding almost without impediment, despite the frequent protests by conservatives.

.Review critically the many attacks on the United States' historical heritage. Renew the belief that mainstream Americans once had in themselves.

            There are others. In other words, there is much that can be done.

Conclusion

            Although there are many critical issues today, some become paramount because a failure to solve them will prove definitive as to all others. The swamping-out of Euro-American civilization by massive immigration from an exploding Third World population is one of these. It should be considered a litmus-test issue for all Americans, including those conservatives and libertarians whose philosophy has not heretofore taken into account the demographic prerequisites of the free society they so genuinely wish to sustain. The hour is already very late, perhaps too late. Those who care about it must respond now. 

ENDNOTES

1. James K. Patterson, "The Liberal Answer to World Over-Population: The Advanced Nations Should Stop Reproducing!," Conservative Review, October 1991, p. 6. Lutton and Tanton say that world population has been growing at the rate of over 90 million people per year since 1996; Wayne Lutton and John Tanton, The Immigration Invasion (Petoskey, Michigan: The Social Contract Press, 1994, p. 118.

2. Palmer Stacy, "The Great Betrayal: U.S. Immigration Policy, 1965-1993," Special Report, American Immigration Control Foundation, 1993.

3. Patterson, "The Liberal Answer," p. 7.

4. Stacy, "The Great Betrayal," p. 8.

5. See the discussion of these issues in Dwight D. Murphey, "The Historic Dispossession of the American Indian: Did It Violate Our Ideals?," Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Fall 1991; and "Issues in the American Cultural War: The World War II Relocation of the Japanese-Americans," Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Spring 1993.

6. Patrick J. Buchanan, "Immigration, Assimilation: Is It U.S.'s Turn Next?," Human Events, June 19, 1993.

7. Joachim F. Weber, "The Last Camp of the Saints: Germany's Immigration Problem," (translated by E. Christian Kopff), Chronicles, November 1993, pp. 19-22.

8. Wichita Eagle, September 2, 1992.

9. Border Watch, newsletter of The American Immigration Control Foundation, July 1993, p. 6.

10. Buchanan, "Immigration...," Human Events, June 19, 1993.

11. Border Watch, January 1993, p. 8.

12. Dwight D. Murphey, Liberalism in Contemporary America (McLean, VA: Council for Social & Economic Studies, 1992).

13. Wichita Eagle, September 24, 1994.

14. Border Watch, February 1993, p. 1.

15. Border Watch, May 1993, p. 3.

16. Wichita Eagle, September 24, 1994.

17. Lawrence Auster, The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism (Monterey, VA: The American Immigration Control Foundation, 1990), pp. 23, 24.

18. Wichita Eagle, February 14, 1993.

19. Wichita Eagle, June 2, 1992.

20. Wichita Eagle, December 19, 1993.

21. Wayne Lutton, "Crossroads America," Chronicles, June 1993, p. 33.

22. Stacy, "The Great Betrayal," p. 7.

23. George M. Carmichael, "Today California: Tomorrow America?," Conservative Review, June 1990, p. 4.

24. Lutton, "Crossroads America," p. 33.

25. Lutton, "Crossroads America," pp. 33, 34.

26. John J. Miller, "Assimilation Enriches America's Melting Pot," Insight, October 3, 1994, p. 20.

27. Garrett Hardin, "The P's and Q's of Immigration," Chronicles, June 1993, p. 17.

28. Lawrence Auster, "Massive Immigration Will Destroy America," Insight, October 3, 1994, pp 18-20.

29. American Conservative Party, "Are We Losing America: The Failure of U.S. Immigration Control and Proposals for Corrective Action," pp. 12, 14.

30. Border Watch, June 1992, p. 2.

31. Wichita Eagle, December 17, 1991.

32. Border Watch, January 1993, p. 4.

33. Border Watch, March 1933, p. 4.

34. Auster, "Massive Immigration Will Destroy America," p. 18.

35. R. A. J. Walling, ed., The Diaries of John Bright (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1931).

36. Auster, "Massive Immigration Will Destroy America," p. 18.

37. Nathan Glaser, Remembering the Answers: Essays on the American Student Revolt (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1970), pp. 229, 231, 242.

38. Auster, National Suicide, pp. 60-1.

39. Auster, National Suicide, p. 61.

40. Lutton, "Crossroads America," p. 33.

41. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, p. 7.

42. Ibid, p. 9.

43. Ibid, p. 9.

44. Wichita Eagle, December 19, 1993.

45. Wichita Eagle, June 26, 1993.

46. Border Watch, May 1992, p. 6.

47. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 10, 11, 22.

48. Ibid, p. 11.

49. Ibid, p. 23.

50. Ibid, pp. 14-18.

51. As quoted in Border Watch, March 1993, p. 4.

52. Border Watch, June 1992, p. 5.

53. As quoted in TII, p. 33.

54. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 34-39.

55. Ibid, pp. 39-40.

56. Ibid, p. 41.

57. Border Watch, December 1992, p. 5.

58. The sociological aspects of the 1911 Coatesville lynching are analyzed at length in Dennis B. Downey and Raymond M. Hyser, No Crooked Death (Urbana, Il.: University of Illinois Press, 1991.

59. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 42-43.

60. Ibid, p. 49.

61. Ibid, pp. 50-51.

62. Border Watch, June 1992, p. 1.

63. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 52-53.

64. Ibid, p. 53.

65. Ibid, p. 54.

66. As quoted in Border Watch, July 1992, p. 2.

67. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 56-57.

68. Ibid, p. 57.

69. Wichita Eagle, December 19, 1993.

70. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 61-62.

71. Ibid, pp. 62-69.

72. Ibid, p. 77.

73. Border Watch, November 1993, p. 3.

74. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, p. 84.

75. Ibid, pp. 85-88.

76. Ibid, pp. 105-107.

77. Ibid, pp. 111-13.

78. Stacy, "The Great Betrayal," p. 3.

79. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, p. 115.

80. Ibid, p. 127.

81. Ibid, p. 122.

82. Ibid, p. 124.

83. Ibid, p. 124.

84. Ibid, pp. 128, 129.

85. Border Watch, April 1993, p. 4.

86. Wichita Eagle, November 26, 1993.

87. Border Watch, March 1993, p. 5.

88. Stacy, "The Great Betrayal," p. 5.

89. Border Watch, November 1993, p. 2.

90. Auster, National Suicide, p. 5.

91. Lawrence Auster, "The Forbidden Topic," National Review, April 27, 1992, p. 42.

92. Stacy, "The Great Betrayal," p. 2.

93. Border Watch, December 1992, p. 3.

94. Wichita Eagle, December 19, 1993.

95. Border Watch, December 1992, p. 5.

96. Border Watch, October 1993, p. 4.

97. Border Watch, May 1992, pp. 1, 6; April 1993, p. 7.

98. American Conservative Party, "Are We Losing America?," pp. 18, 19.

99. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, p. 150.

100. This view was expressed by Gerald Volgenau of the Knight- Ridder News Service in a major piece published in the Wichita Eagle on December 19, 1993.

101. Lutton and Tanton, The Immigration Invasion, pp. 152-4.

102. Ibid, p. 158.

103. Ibid, p. 161.

104. Ibid, p. 162.

105. Ibid, p. 162.

106. Ibid, p. 162.

107. Ibid, p. 162.