Video Games Forum - Free Online Arcade and Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Darth_Faction · #16 (**permalink**) 02-20-2003, 05:16 PM

Immigration has always been an American tradition. But, according to English immigrant, Peter Brimelow, this is not true. To Brimelow, America got its momentum both economically and morally from the Colonial Era. But because of new immigration laws like The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and control Act of 986, this momentum has become "increasingly obscured."

Brimelow claims that current immigration trends will ruin America's patriotism and distort its ethnic and cultural makeup creating an "alien nation." Immigrants bring with them the values and beliefs of their home country, he says, and are unlikely to assimilate into American culture. But what about the people who came to this country during the Great Wave of immigration in the earlier part of this century? Haven't these immigrants assimilated into society and become "American?" Recent immigrants, he claims, are unlikely to assimilate because of a new emphasis on multiculturalism rather than assimilation.

Brimelow states that part of the difficulty in achieving immigrant assimilation into American society is that not enough European immigrants are able to come to this country to "shift the ethnic balance back" (pp. 75-76). Since the population of America has been predominately English or white, allowing too many people of color or too many people from Third World countries across the borders will ruin America's foundation. By the year 2050, it is expected that white people will no longer be the majority race in this country. Brimelow assumes that this means that American ideals and systems will disappear.

An economic journalist, Brimelow sets aside two chapters for discussion of the economic impacts of immigration. He claims that a greater percentage of immigrants are on welfare than natives and that, in 1990, we spent $16 billion more in payments to immigrants than they paid back in taxes. But, unlike other statistics that are taken regarding immigrants, his statistics include native-born "immigrants." Another Economic issue raised by Brimelow is that immigration standards do not focus on the skill level of people trying to enter this country. He argues that this will not only hurt the American economy as a whole, but will also hurt American blacks. He states that throughout history, blacks in this country have been forced to compete with immigrants for jobs. For example, he refers to New York in the 1830's. Most domestic servants were black; twenty years later though, they were Irish. He says that the immigration from Europe after the Civil War is partially to blame for the slowed economic integration of freed slaves.

One of his most shocking statements (I think) regarding immigration and the economy is that capitalism depends on the English language for its success. He comes to this conclusion by extending a statement made by Milton Friedman, a classical liberal economics Nobel laureate. In an interview with Brimelow, Friedman commented on the fact that it is a "curious fact" that capitalism developed and has "come to fruition in the English speaking world" (pp. 176-177). Brimelow translates this into the argument that capitalism needs this specific cultural prerequisite to function and since immigration can alter the cultural patterns of a society, immigration will affect America's ability to sustain capitalism. He does explain how Japan is successful in capitalism even though they speak Japanese by correlating Japan's success with their virtually non-existent immigration rate. He does not attempt to explain how countries like Canada or Belgium have flourished having two different languages spoken though.

Brimelow's style of writing and the arguments he uses are not academic, but rather are a bit dogmatic and opinionated. He rarely brings up any ubstantial arguments that "immigration enthusiast," as he puts it, would have to say. Reading the book does not leave you with the impression that all of the facts have been presented correctly or exhaustively. If he does bring up arguments made by immigration enthusiasts, they are rarely the main points that would be presented. For instance, Brimelow states that immigration enthusiasts state to him that without immigration, their grandparents would not have been able to start a life in this country. This is probably not the main argument addressed by these enthusiasts.

Peter Brimelow time and time again states that never in history has a country experienced such rapid change in its ethnic makeup. He argues that the "browning of America" (referring to TIME magazine cover story April 9, 1990) is going to radically change this country. In fact, he even goes as far as to suggest that America may lose California or Texas as states in the union because of immigration. He cites statistics of ethnic conflict in other countries (Yugoslavia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Czechoslovakia, etc.) and feels that we should see these situations as foreshadowing what will happen to America. The conflicts in the counties he mentions did not occur due to high immigration though. These situations originated from ethnic conflicts between only tow cultures or between an oppressed group ruled by other countries.

Peter Brimelow is less concerned with ethnic wars in this country than he is terrified of becoming a minority. Brimelow himself states that discussions about immigration tend to be "the projection of personal values, fears, phobias and fantasies," (pp. 109) but he seems to be unaware of his role in this projection. Brimelow states that he is called a racist because he is not afraid to talk openly about race, but he is called a racist because he is. Anyone who states, "why not have more Asians and fewer Hispanics" (pp. 75) obviously is prejudiced against Hispanics. Instead of making legitimate arguments regarding immigration, he ends up making opinionated and prejudicial comments on the ethnic makeup of America. Brimelow's book would have been a lot easier to swallow if he would have focused more on the impacts of immigration as a whole instead of Third World immigration or immigration of people of "color." He states that he is completely against immigration (ironic argument for an immigrant who is married to another immigrant), but in the next breath he argues that there is not enough immigration from Europe. Brimelow, through ALIEN NATION, tries to make an argument against immigration based on economics and not racist viewpoints; but all in all his position is full of exaggerations and racially motivated arguments that do not stand on solid ground.

Marji Swanson