To the Editor:
Tamar Jacoby’s article [“Too Many Immigrants?,” April] sent shock waves through our little immigration-reform community, not so much because of her arguments as because of her unwontedly civil tone, which we appreciated. Still, her arguments are not impressive, essentially because she has not fully grasped the critique of post-1965 immigration policy made by groups like ours. We have posted a full analysis of her article at www.vdare.com/misc/tamar_jacoby.htm.
She seems unaware, for example, of the National Research Council’s 1997 study, The New Americans, which confirmed the consensus among labor economists that the immigrant influx since 1965 has brought no significant net aggregate economic benefit to the native-born population. America, in other words, is being transformed for nothing. I wrote about this widespread agreement among economists as long ago as 1995 in my book Alien Nation. But I know from bitter experience that most commentators are interested not in the economics of immigration but in the race-related aspects of the issue. Tamar Jacoby is no exception.
In this regard, it is interesting that she mistells the story of Virginia Dare, the first white child born in the New World, in whose honor our webzine VDARE.com is named. Dare was not “kidnapped as a baby and never seen again.” Instead, she vanished with the rest of what be-came known as the “lost colony” on Roanoke Island off the North Carolina coast. Tamar Jacoby could have easily checked this on our website. There she would also have seen that we actually satirize the miscegenation fears she (civilly) imputes to us.
She is also mistaken when she says that those at VDARE.com “make no secret of their concern about the way America’s original Anglo-Saxon stock is being transformed by immigration.” This is a peculiar claim to make about a website many of whose writers are not “Anglo-Saxons.” It is true, of course, that we acknowledge the American nation’s very specific ethno-cultural core. This core, in our opinion, makes America much like the great nations of Europe and confounds the fashionable myth of the “creedal nation” that can absorb anyone who signs on the dotted line.
Peter Brimelow
Center For American Unity
Warrenton, Virginia
_____________
To the Editor:
Is it possible to control immigration? Tamar Jacoby answers in the negative. This view is common not only among advocates of mass immigration but even among some of its critics. Fortunately, it is also wrong. Migration is not like the weather; it is a product of government policies. This is because no one wakes up in, say, Bolivia and declares, “Today I will move to New Jersey.” Push and pull factors are important (poverty and bad government at home, freedom and economic opportunity abroad), but networks of relatives and friends already in the U.S. are necessary to bring the push and the pull together. And these networks are largely created by government actions.
The argument that immigration is inevitable and not fully controllable is strongest in the case of Mexico, but even in this case it falls short. The wave of illegal immigration we have seen over the past several decades is a direct result of networks created by the Bracero program, a scheme to import farmworkers run by the federal government from the 1940’s to the 1960’s. Sociologists have found that the best predictor of a Mexican’s propensity to move to the U.S. is whether he already has a relative here. Indeed, the states in west-central Mexico that sent the most Bracero workers continue to be disproportionately represented in today’s immigration flow.
It is not too late to do something about this problem. The border patrol has proved quite effective in directing illegal crossings away from border cities toward more remote areas where enforcement is easier, and the stepped-up enforcement since September 11 has been even more successful at curbing crossings. Yet even the most sophisticated border control cannot work without enforcement of the prohibition against hiring illegal immigrants and an end to extended-family “chain migration.” Tamar Jacoby claims that business would never accept such changes, and resistance has been indeed fierce. But we live in a different world now, one where ineffective immigration controls can threaten our lives.
The narrow interests that benefit from mass immigration may continue to prevail against growing public dissatisfaction, but to assume that such an outcome is inevitable is to accept a kind of anti-democratic determinism.
Mark Krikorian
Center for Immigration
Studies
Washington, D.C.
_____________
To the Editor:
Tamar Jacoby argues that the best way to eliminate illegal immigration is to fulfill the country’s demand for cheap labor. To achieve this, she says, the U.S. should issue visas to people in countries like Mexico based on “the natural rise and fall of supply and demand” for labor while taking more effective measures against the thousands of illegal immigrants who come pouring across our borders.
But this argument is severely flawed. Not only is the government incapable of calculating supply and demand and adjusting policy accordingly—this is why Communism failed—but the demand for illegal labor would remain unchanged by raising the numbers of legal immigrants, since the main benefit of such workers is that they are willing to work for less than the minimum wage. There would continue to be an incentive to sneak across the border. To combat this problem Tamar Jacoby proposes “serious enforcement measures,” but I do not see what enforcement measures could be effective, short of erecting what she calls “the equivalent of a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande,” an action she rightly dismisses as unrealistic.
But the main flaw with her analysis is that she overestimates the significance of unskilled labor to the U.S. economy. Ours is not an agrarian society; the bulk of our gross domestic product comes from the innovations of companies like G.E., Microsoft, and Boeing. One of the major reasons our economy has become the world leader in such sectors is that we have traditionally attracted skilled immigrants from around the world. Contrary to Tamar Jacoby, basing our immigration policy on meritocratic principles would not “smack of a very un-American elitism.” To close the door on an engineer who may start the next Microsoft in order to admit a person who is willing to mow lawns is neither un-American nor elitist—it is simply foolhardy.
David Gulko
Fairlawn, New Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
Tamar Jacoby fails to address one of the major negative consequences of mass immigration: the assault on the traditional American ideal of equality of opportunity for individuals—regardless of race, creed, color, or sex—in the name of equality of result for groups. What is now called “diversity” means, in practice, preference for so-called “oppressed” groups (women, blacks, Latinos, and non-English speakers) and discrimination against individuals in so-called “dominant” groups (Anglos, males, whites, and English-speakers).
The convergence of mass immigration and group preferences has provided group-rights advocates with both a plausible rationale to influence public opinion and a critical mass of supporters. Latinos, for example, opposed California’s 1996 referendum against racial preferences. Moderate levels of immigration, combined with vigorous efforts to assimilate newcomers into the American way of life, would work fine, but unfortunately this sensible approach is not our current policy.
John Fonte
Hudson Institute
Washington, D.C.
_____________
To the Editor:
It is hard to argue against Tamar Jacoby’s premise that we ought to let people into the country based on the need for their labor. But her claim that “compared with this, any other criterion for immigration policy . . . sinks into irrelevancy” is wrong. For Americans in general, and for Jews in particular, immigration has serious non-economic implications.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 and the subsequent intensification of the Middle East conflict have made several things clear. First, Israel’s physical survival and ability to defend itself depend almost entirely on continued U.S. support. Second, America’s Muslims are starting to challenge seriously the political power of America’s Jews. It is estimated that there are now anywhere from 2.5 to 4 million Muslims in this country. Without a change in immigration patterns, it is likely that they will outnumber Jews here within a decade. Anyone who thinks that this development will not alter U.S. policy toward the Jewish state need only look at what has happened in other democracies—France, Britain, and Germany—in which Muslims outnumber Jews.
There are disturbing indications that Muslims are beginning to flex their political muscle in this country as well. Pro-Palestinian groups are increasingly asserting themselves on American college campuses, and are demanding that their schools divest themselves of stock in corporations that do business with Israel.
Norman Podhoretz wrote that his shift from liberalism to neoconservatism was motivated in part by the unwillingness of left-wing intellectuals, particularly Jewish ones, to address the rising tide of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on the Left. He suggested that Jewish writers pondering political issues should feel free to ask the age-old question, “is it good for the Jews?”—and to do so without fear of reflecting a “mentality no broader than that of the tribe.” Now that the Jews appear to be in deep trouble again, are COMMENTARY’S authors so beholden to free-market ideology that they can no longer ask this question without embarrassment?
Seth Forman
State University of New York,
Stonybrook
Hauppauge, New York
_____________
To the Editor:
Recent European experience shows what can be expected from allowing massive immigration to continue from the Muslim world into the United States. Since it would be politically and morally difficult to restrict immigration from a single group of countries, one solution would be to curtail overall immigration. Alternatively, immigrants might be required to abjure allegiance to groups deemed to be terrorist organizations by the U.S., precisely as was once done with members of the Nazi and Communist parties.
Robert Lerner
Rockville, Maryland
_____________
To the Editor:
Tamar Jacoby fails to mention the ways in which refugees have been affected by post-September 11 immigration policy. Even before the attacks, the U.S. was admitting steadily fewer refugees; the target of 70,000 that President Bush has set for 2002 is half the level of ten years ago. A “security review” has now slowed admissions so much that at the current rate America will admit barely 20,000 refugees this year, less than a quarter of the annual average admitted during the 1990’s.
The security benefits of this policy are dubious: refugees are the most scrutinized of immigrants, screened by the FBI and other agencies before admission. Considering the relative ease of obtaining tourist and student visas, a terrorist would have to be crazy to try to enter the United States by joining the ranks of the world’s 14 million refugees.
But the humanitarian costs are clear: America’s door is closing on the world’s most severely dispossessed people, and governments that send asylum-seekers back to sea (Australia) or deport refugees to homelessness in the Balkans (Germany) are now feeling less pressure from Washington to reverse their cruel practices.
Philip Peters
Lexington Institute
Arlington, Virginia
_____________
To the Editor:
Tamar Jacoby proposes that the United States institute an immigration policy under which unskilled immigrants can enter this country legally and become permanent U.S. residents.
It is certainly possible to admit people—along with their families—on a temporary basis to do unskilled labor; we now have such visa categories for artists, athletes, intracompany employees, and those in “specialty occupations.” The question is: when their time has expired, should they be able to adjust their status, receive a “green card,” and become permanent residents? How should such a status be granted, and what criteria should be applied?
Aliens who find themselves in deportation proceedings can resort to a form of relief called “cancellation of removal.” An immigration judge can grant permanent-resident status to an alien who has been in the country a certain number of years, has good moral character (no criminal convictions), and has demonstrated that his removal from the U.S. would constitute a particular level of hardship to a spouse, child, or parent with legal status here.
Though “hardship” is the main legal issue around which the discretion of the judge revolves, when an alien applies for this kind of relief the judge typically examines the extent to which he and his family have integrated into the surrounding community and practiced the norms of law-abiding Americans. Have they filed tax returns regularly? Do they hold jobs, or have they resorted to public assistance? Those who have taken classes in English (rather than using the bilingual-education option) almost always make a more positive impression. On the other hand, a judge tends to view less favorably an application from families with teenagers who have failing grades or cannot speak English fluently.
The U.S. could institute a similar regimen for temporary unskilled workers. Upon expiration of their temporary status, they could become permanent residents by demonstrating to the satisfaction of the INS that they had put down sufficient roots in the country, and had been sufficiently acculturated to life in the United States.
Edward S. Reisman
Santa Monica, California
_____________
To the Editor:
In her otherwise incisive article, Tamar Jacoby might have commented on the history of anti-immigration feeling in the U.S. At least since the 1820’s, such sentiment has been variously expressed in the Know-Nothing party, in the anti-Catholic slogan “rum, Romanism, and ruin,” in fear of the “yellow peril,” in anti-Italian prejudice, in restrictive quotas aimed at Jews, and in recent discrimination against Vietnamese refugees. The arguments over the years have been similar to those Tamar Jacoby cites: that a surfeit of immigrants who refuse to assimilate into the melting pot will make our lives untenable and take jobs away from American workers. In a short space of time, however, each “they” became part of the “we” that is America’s greatness.
Donald Feldstein
Teaneck, New Jersey
_____________
Tamar Jacoby writes:
I am glad Peter Brimelow appreciates what he calls the “civil tone” of my article, but from his other comments it is hard to believe he has read it. How otherwise could he claim that I am “interested not in the economics of immigration but in the race-related aspects of the issue,” when the very essence of my argument is that we ought to bring immigration law more into line with the reality of the marketplace—and when my criticism of groups like his focuses precisely on their preoccupation with racial issues?
I am, in any case, very familiar with the National Research Council (NRC) study Mr. Brimelow cites—and which, by the way, he completely mischaracterizes. Far from positing “no significant net economic benefit” from immigration, the report calculates “a significant positive gain,” perhaps as large as $10 billion a year—and, as the NRC authors themselves point out, theirs is a highly conservative estimate. Well aware of the conflict that surrounds these issues, they confined themselves to computing the most tangible and easily calculated economic gains—primarily the difference between the wages paid to immigrants and the value of the goods and services they produce. They thus left out all manner of economic ripple effects (remember, immigrants too buy groceries and shoes and cars and washing machines), productivity gains (due in part to the innovations of highly skilled immigrants but also, in the case of the less skilled, to the way they free up native-born workers to do what they do most productively), the impact of immigrant-owned businesses, the consequences of immigrant-led revitalization of urban neighborhoods, and so forth. All of this is extremely hard to estimate, which is why the NRC did not try and why I did not report any of the speculative figures put forward in recent years by other economists. But make no mistake: very few honest students of immigration think there is no net economic gain.
Of course, many economists who recognize the windfall still oppose the current influx on other grounds, as they have every right to do. But I wish Mr. Brimelow would stop trying to disguise his concerns—most of them stemming from immigration’s effect on what he euphemistically calls the nation’s “ethno-cultural” make-up—in the garb of economic argument.
Mark Krikorian raises an interesting and, as I am sure he knows, much disputed question that deserves fuller treatment than it can be given here. Let me simply point out how much he overstates the case when he claims that “migration is a product of government policies.” In fact, as he himself goes on to argue, it is a product of many things, including past migration patterns, current immigrant networks, global economic forces, the new global interconnectedness, domestic labor needs, and much more. Some of these factors can be traced in part, though rarely entirely, to past government policies, and some of them are amenable to government regulation—to some degree. But in the end, I am afraid, it is simply unrealistic to imagine that the U.S. government can somehow turn immigration on and off like a kitchen faucet.
That said, Mr. Krikorian’s impulses are surely right: no nation wants to be in a position where it cannot control its borders—where it cannot keep track of who or how many are entering, or where its laws are overmatched by forces it can hardly monitor, let alone check or regulate. All the more reason, in my view, for a sensible immigration policy more consistent with the realities of today’s world—a realistic policy that can be realistically enforced. Instead of a Prohibition-like regime we cannot possibly hope to maintain in the face of the actual annual flow, does it not make sense to bring our quotas more into line with the world as it is—quotas we could then make stick, generating a legal influx we could hope to keep track of? Indeed, this would seem imperative in the wake of September 11.
As for who would benefit from this more practical approach, it is hard to know what to say to Mr. Krikorian’s absurd implication that American prosperity somehow benefits only a “narrow interest”—and, in his view, an apparently despicable interest, at that. Surely not just business but the American people as a whole have a stake in a more realistic immigration policy that can at once bolster our economy and allow us to restore a measure of badly needed control on our borders.
_____________
David Gulko reads my piece as a call for turning the U.S. into a command economy. In fact, what I advocate is a policy that gives freer rein to market forces: immigrant quotas high enough to accommodate the unfettered ebb and flow of supply and demand. As for Mr. Gulko’s suggestion that we are harming ourselves by admitting busboys at the expense of doctors, lawyers, and engineers, under the immigration policy I propose we would not have to choose. There is no reason why we cannot admit enough foreign workers to accommodate our very real—but by no means unlimited or unmanageable—needs at both ends of the economic spectrum.
John Fonte makes the common mistake of assuming that to be in favor of continued immigration—at current levels or somewhat higher—is ipso facto to be opposed to assimilation. But that is nonsense. I favor both continued immigration and assimilation very strongly—and, like Mr. Fonte, I would like to see some changes in the way we as a nation talk about and foster assimilation. But I also believe that America will prove more than capable of absorbing even the great wave of newcomers arriving today.
Very much along the lines of my own thinking is Edward S. Reisman’s suggestion that we admit workers first on a temporary basis and then extend their stay if they show a willingness to assimilate. We differ on the details—I do not think, for example, that a judge should decide every case—but agree entirely about what is ultimately in the nation’s best interest: to welcome and reward those newcomers who work, pay taxes, obey the law, learn English, and otherwise participate in American civic life.
On the question of Muslim immigrants, raised by both Seth Forman and Robert Lerner, obviously we need to give greater scrutiny to would-be immigrants from countries under the sway of radical Islam—and indeed many reforms implemented since September 11 are aimed at doing precisely that. But immigrants from Arabic-speaking countries constitute only an infinitesimal percentage of the annual influx—some ten thousand a year, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, out of a total of more than a million legal and illegal migrants—and it would be absurd to let that number become the tail that wags the dog of U.S. policy.
Philip Peters’s point about refugee policy is well-taken but outside the scope of my article. As for Donald Feldstein’s claim that anti-immigrant Americans of all eras have eventually been rendered irrelevant by the country’s unique and astonishing power to assimilate newcomers of every color and creed, I hope and fully expect that this will prove true again in the decades that lie ahead.
_____________
